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 761 - 770 of 1006
    2021-爆料网AT-1137, Appellant

    爆料网AT found the 爆料网DT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, 爆料网AT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer’s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1122, Yasmina Laasri

    爆料网AT first noted that neither party disagreed with the 爆料网DT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, 爆料网AT disagreed with the Administration and found that the 爆料网DT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). 爆料网AT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

    2021-爆料网AT-1079, Reilly

    爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member’s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. 爆料网AT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of 爆料网DT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the 爆料网DT is not receivable. 爆料网AT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

    2021-爆料网AT-1080, Mukeba

    爆料网AT held the staff member’s appeal of the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the 爆料网DT was erroneous. Additionally, 爆料网AT also held that it found no error in the practice of the 爆料网DT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

    2021-爆料网AT-1129, Applicant

    爆料网AT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, 爆料网AT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

    2021-爆料网AT-1092, Olga Mokrova

    爆料网DT correctly found that Ms Mokrova’s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

    2021-爆料网AT-1114, Gudrun Fosse

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-1008. 爆料网AT considered Ms. Fosse’s claim that SCBD/爆料网EP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, 爆料网AT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse’s application was inter alia rejected by the 爆料网DT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

    2021-爆料网AT-1128, Diane Fairweather

    爆料网AT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, 爆料网AT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

    2021-爆料网AT-1078, Abdalla Mohammed Abdalla

    Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, 爆料网AT actually rejected the Secretary-General’s appeal on the basis that it was moot. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.