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 751 - 760 of 1006
    2021-爆料网AT-1141, Najway Yusef, Imad El Manasri, Rabie Abdulghani

    爆料网AT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the 爆料网RWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1142, Edward E. Hammond

    Mr. Hammond’s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the 爆料网DT’s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond’s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond’s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a “conversion” or an “abolishment” because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond’s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.

    2021-爆料网AT-1116, Ashraf Ismail Abed allah Zaqqout

    The impugned 爆料网RWA DT Order clearly comes within its competence to issue appropriate case management orders. It did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 123, and Mr. Zaqqout is not prevented from attacking the interlocutory order later if he appeals the final judgment of the 爆料网RWA DT on the merits.

    2021-爆料网AT-1117, Margaret Mary Fogarty

    爆料网AT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. 爆料网AT held that the source of the Secretary-General’s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

    2021-爆料网AT-1134, Anis Basil AlMousa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however 爆料网AT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because 爆料网AT did not detect any error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

    2021-爆料网AT-1135, Mohammad Tofazzel Hossain

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. 爆料网AT admitted on appeal the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1136, Abdulhamid Al Fararjeh

    爆料网AT held that the facts upon which 爆料网RWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of 爆料网RWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

    2021-爆料网AT-1118, Boubacar Dieng

    爆料网AT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, 爆料网AT disagreed with the staff member that the 爆料网DT...

    2021-爆料网AT-1131, Mohammed Sirhan

    The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the 爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...