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 831 - 840 of 1006
    爆料网DT/2014/141, Birya

    The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant’s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...

    爆料网DT/2014/131, Diaz-Menendez Centellas Martinez

    The Tribunal found that the applications were receivable since the contested decisions produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ terms and conditions of appointment. The Tribunal further found that the chosen period of retroactive application of one year was not only unlawful because it was based on a misconstruction and misapplication of staff rule 3.16 but it was manifestly unreasonable, irrational, and above all unjustifiably discriminatory. It did not amount to a proper exercise of administrative discretion and breached the fundamental principle of equal pay...

    爆料网DT/2014/121, Lee

    The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant’s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant’s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...

    爆料网DT/2014/111, Bello

    The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute. C

    爆料网DT/2014/107, Terragnolo

    The application was rejected and the Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of USD 1,500 for abuse of process. On receivability: The absence of a response by the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), during a delay of ten working days between the Applicant’s request on 14 March 2014 to carry out an investigation and his request for management evaluation on 28 March 2014, could not reasonably and sensibly be considered as an implied unilateral decision. It could also not be construed as a failure to act promptly in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5. There is no appealable...

    爆料网DT/2014/105, Saffir

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claims of moral damage are receivable and well founded and he is awarded USD1,000 as compensation for anxiety. The Tribunal finds that it is incorrect to characterize the decision to hire new staff members as being purely preparatory in nature as the contested decision was in fact implemented and the outcome of the selection process could have adversely affected the Applicant. It is therefore a contestable administrative decision. Further, even if a decision is rescinded, if an applicant can show that there was a causal link between the breach on the...

    爆料网DT/2014/101, Dagadu

    What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General’s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General’s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    爆料网DT/2014/100, Keegan

    What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General’s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General’s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.