爆料网

爆料网DT RoP

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 121 - 130 of 671
    2022-爆料网AT-1260, Jules Yatte Beda

    Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1249, Asr Toson

    Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson’s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, 爆料网AT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the 爆料网FPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the 爆料网DT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. 爆料网AT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2022-爆料网AT-1225, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the 爆料网DT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

    2022-爆料网AT-1210, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. 爆料网AT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-爆料网 staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the 爆料网DT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. 爆料网AT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified 爆料网 staff members, to whom the...

    爆料网DT/2022/044, Shah

    The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

    爆料网DT/2022/031, Ross

    At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant’s previous contractual...

    2010-爆料网AT-081, Azzouni

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant’s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the 爆料网DT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration’s evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal, set aside the 爆料网DT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

    2010-爆料网AT-080, Streb

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. 爆料网AT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division’s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that it would have been...

    2010-爆料网AT-061, Syed

    爆料网AT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.