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 201 - 210 of 671
    2016-爆料网AT-650, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

    2016-爆料网AT-649, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

    2016-爆料网AT-648, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-爆料网AT-647, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

    2016-爆料网AT-621, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. 爆料网AT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, 爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

    2016-爆料网AT-618, Subramanian et al.

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

    2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...

    2017-爆料网AT-796, Porter

    爆料网AT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the paragraphs of the 爆料网DT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

    2017-爆料网AT-772, Kadri

    On the Appellant’s claim for his name not to appear in the 爆料网AT judgment, 爆料网AT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT, it would be pointless to order redaction. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. 爆料网AT held that there was no...

    2017-爆料网AT-740, Auda

    爆料网AT held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s claims that 爆料网DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that the application to 爆料网DT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU’s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law...