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 221 - 230 of 671
    2019-爆料网AT-941, Dieng

    爆料网AT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to 爆料网DT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT therefore initially made no error of law in...

    2019-爆料网AT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT agreed that the delay was unfort爆料网ATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

    2019-爆料网AT-915, Yasin

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that 爆料网DT’s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. 爆料网AT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

    2020-爆料网AT-1072, Nadeau

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1077, Domitila Icha

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

    2020-爆料网AT-1058, Nadeau

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. 爆料网AT held that he did not demonstrate that 爆料网DT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. 爆料网AT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. 爆料网AT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the 爆料网DT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2020-爆料网AT-1035, Gelsei

    爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. 爆料网AT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

    2020-爆料网AT-1024, Nyawa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. 爆料网AT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. 爆料网AT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. 爆料网AT disagreed with 爆料网DT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting 爆料网AT intervention...

    2020-爆料网AT-998, Barud

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

    2020-爆料网AT-978, Thombiano

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. 爆料网AT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT was correct...