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 181 - 190 of 671
    2014-爆料网AT-481, Lee

    爆料网AT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. 爆料网AT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

    2014-爆料网AT-474, Al-Mulla

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2014-爆料网AT-471, Landgraf

    The Appellant requested that the 爆料网DT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to 爆料网DT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellant’s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. 爆料网AT noted that, while 爆料网DT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the 爆料网DT RoP, 爆料网DT’s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s refusal to...

    2014-爆料网AT-443, Hunt-Matthes

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member’s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey’s summary of evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. 爆料网AT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General...

    2014-爆料网AT-422, Khisa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have issued a default “Summary judgment” on the merits of the case. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment. The case was remanded to another 爆料网DT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

    2015-爆料网AT-595, Survo

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of 爆料网DT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General’s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

    2015-爆料网AT-597, Wu

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网DT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. 爆料网AT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of 爆料网DT and do...

    2015-爆料网AT-582, Kacan

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that 爆料网DT was unable to find any such evidence, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that 爆料网DT’s...

    2015-爆料网AT-558, Kouadio

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. 爆料网AT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that 爆料网DT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and dismissed Mr...

    2015-爆料网AT-560, Staedtler

    爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General’s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler’s contention that 爆料网AT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...