爆料网

爆料网AT Statute

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 741 - 750 of 1006
    2021-爆料网AT-1175, Bhaskar Palit

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, 爆料网AT held there was no basis for vacating the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the 爆料网DT’s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. 爆料网AT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that 爆料网DT erred in its...

    2021-爆料网AT-1161, Asr Ahmed Toson

    爆料网AT held 爆料网DT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, 爆料网AT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant’s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. 爆料网AT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1163, Beatriz Fernandez Carrillo

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the Appellant’s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant’s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. 爆料网AT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

    2021-爆料网AT-1152, Ashraf Zaqqout

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-1055. 爆料网AT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the 爆料网RWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout’s application was dismissed.

    2021-爆料网AT-1160, Asr Ahmed Toson

    On the request for the oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether 爆料网DT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, 爆料网AT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) 爆料网DT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

    2021-爆料网AT-1148, Secretary-General of IMO

    The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the 爆料网AT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something 爆料网AT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The 爆料网AT’s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

    2021-爆料网AT-1150, Andrea Barbato

    爆料网AT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the 爆料网AT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

    2021-爆料网AT-1151, Raed Mousa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, 爆料网AT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal. 爆料网AT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

    2021-爆料网AT-1077, Icha

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

    2021-爆料网AT-1120, Jose Daniel Arango

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. 爆料网AT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...