爆料网

爆料网DT Statute

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 1867
    爆料网DT/2025/064, Iacovino

    Receivability

    After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the challenge to the decision to abolish the Applicant’s post and terminate his continuing appointment was not receivable. It held that the only matter before it was the decision not to extend the Applicant’s employment to cover his sick leave, but instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while he was on certified sick leave.

    Merits

    First, the Tribunal assessed whether the Applicant was on certified sick leave at the time of his separation on 31 December 2023.

    Although sick leave was not formally recorded...

    2024-爆料网AT-1469-Corr.1, Parmosivea Soobrayan

    The 爆料网AT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the 爆料网DT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The 爆料网AT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General’s contention was that the 爆料网DT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

    Nonetheless, the 爆料网AT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

    2025-爆料网AT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member’s application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione temporis. The 爆料网AT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the 爆料网AT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

    The...

    2025-爆料网AT-1606, Anna Stepanova

    The 爆料网AT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of “individual application” but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

    Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging “non-compliance” with “the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT held that her claim was...

    2025-爆料网AT-1590, ABE

    The 爆料网AT disagreed with the 爆料网DT’s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior 爆料网DT case concerning ABE. The 爆料网AT considered it clear that the issues before the 爆料网DT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the 爆料网DT in the case on appeal. The 爆料网AT thus agreed with the conclusion of the 爆料网DT that ABE’s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

    The...

    2025-爆料网AT-1582, Olexandr Maruschak

    The 爆料网AT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the 爆料网AT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The 爆料网AT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the 爆料网DT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the 爆料网DT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new 爆料网DT judgment in its entirety, including the 爆料网DT’s holding on the merits.

    The 爆料网AT found that the Secretary-General’s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the 爆料网DT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...

    2024-爆料网AT-1503-Corr.1, Amjad Issa

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months’ non-payment of his salary. However, the 爆料网AT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months’ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

    The 爆料网AT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

    2025-爆料网AT-1602, Hatim Mahmoud Sobier

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in finding the staff member’s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The 爆料网AT found that Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the 爆料网DT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

    2025-爆料网AT-1599, Faten Hatem Al Dawoud

    The 爆料网AT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

    On the merits, the 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly identified the Agency’s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the 爆料网AT...

    2025-爆料网AT-1597, Janet Efrati

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, 爆料网AT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the 爆料网DT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

    As to the second application, 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s interpretation of the Settlement...