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 191 - 200 of 671
    2015-爆料网AT-557, Kazazi

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s application for confidentiality. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. 爆料网AT held, in agreement with 爆料网DT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held, in agreement with 爆料网DT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

    2015-爆料网AT-552, Gallo

    爆料网AT held that it could discern no error in 爆料网DT’s computation of the applicable time limits. 爆料网AT considered that the 爆料网DT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2015-爆料网AT-527, Dhanjee

    爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant’s candidature full and fair consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager’s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. 爆料网AT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before 爆料网DT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. 爆料网AT held that...

    2015-爆料网AT-520, Eng

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. 爆料网AT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. 爆料网AT granted the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-705, De Aguirre

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT...

    2016-爆料网AT-694, Monarawila

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal, in which she alleged that 爆料网DT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. 爆料网AT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the 爆料网DT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. 爆料网AT also held...

    2016-爆料网AT-686, He

    爆料网AT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which 爆料网DT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to 爆料网DT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated 爆料网DT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT.

    2016-爆料网AT-666, Han

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT’s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the 爆料网DT Rules of Procedure gives 爆料网DT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information “for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by 爆料网DT was...

    2016-爆料网AT-609, Siri

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-651, Choi

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP. 爆料网AT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to 爆料网AT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to 爆料网AT and the moving party. 爆料网AT...