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 171 - 180 of 671
    2013-爆料网AT-365, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

    2013-爆料网AT-345, Neault

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the 爆料网DT within 90 calendar days of an applicant’s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to 爆料网DT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

    2013-爆料网AT-354, Lebouef et al.

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-185. 爆料网AT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by 爆料网DT in its Case Management Order. 爆料网AT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. 爆料网AT rejected the application for interpretation.

    2013-爆料网AT-313, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration’s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing in the Appellant’s written or oral submissions to persuade 爆料网AT that 爆料网DT made any error of law or fact in...

    2013-爆料网AT-329, Perez-Soto

    Noting the broad discretion of 爆料网DT with respect to case management, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the contention that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, 爆料网AT noted that these matters had been...

    2013-爆料网AT-305, Kasmani

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT recalled that 爆料网AT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the 爆料网DT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. 爆料网AT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

    2013-爆料网AT-281, Pacheco

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of 爆料网DT regarding the abolition of her post. 爆料网AT recalled the broad discretion of 爆料网DT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of 爆料网DT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

    2013-爆料网AT-282, Lauritzen

    On the alleged procedural error of the 爆料网DT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, 爆料网AT held that it was well within the competence of 爆料网DT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; 爆料网AT dismissed this ground of appeal. 爆料网AT held, affirming the finding of 爆料网DT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. 爆料网AT found no merit in the ground of appeal that 爆料网DT failed to consider that 爆料网HCR...

    2014-爆料网AT-488, Chocobar

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 233, which contended that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. 爆料网AT noted that Article 36 of the 爆料网DT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the 爆料网DT Order, as there was no case before 爆料网DT to which Article 36 could apply. 爆料网AT further noted that Article 36 does not allow 爆料网DT to...

    2014-爆料网AT-455, Guzman

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed Ms Guzman’s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General’s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by 爆料网AT. On the merits, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman’s amended Motion of...