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 131 - 140 of 1867
    2024-爆料网AT-1498-Corr.1, Houria Kembouche

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the former staff member’s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

    The 爆料网AT also determined that the 爆料网DT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years’ net base salary. In this regard, the 爆料网AT emphasized that the 爆料网DT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member’s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

    2024-爆料网AT-1479, Polino Malish Abbas

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the 爆料网AT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member’s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the 爆料网DT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member’s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

    Nevertheless...

    2024-爆料网AT-1501, Kamran Ali Khan

    The 爆料网AT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant’s attorney’s personal circumstances.

    The 爆料网AT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan’s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan’s exceptional circumstances—including severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

    2024-爆料网AT-1488, Abdurrahman Turk

    The 爆料网AT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The 爆料网AT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure.

    The 爆料网AT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the 爆料网AT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

    2024-爆料网AT-1511, Naima ABDELLAOUI

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui’s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the 爆料网DT’s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an “administrative decision” and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

    爆料网DT/2025/002, Shiala Nsilu

    The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the 爆料网ICEF Field Office (“CFO”) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, “Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter”. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

    The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

    爆料网DT/2024/106, Ngigi

    The Tribunal held:

    1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising 爆料网HCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.

    2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.

    3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...

    爆料网DT/2024/064, Tomeci

    The Tribunal held that:

    a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

    b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

    c.The Applicant’s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

    d. The record was...

    爆料网DT/2024/090, Brown
    • Appealed

    The Tribunal held that:

    a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

    b. it was not part of the Applicant’s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

    c. The issue regarding the Applicant’s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

    d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

    2024-爆料网AT-1499, Philippe Schifferling

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

    The Appeals Tribunal held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

    The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.