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 161 - 170 of 1867
    2024-爆料网AT-1409, Lillian Ular

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the 爆料网AT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The 爆料网AT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches “for several years” and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

    As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

    2024-爆料网AT-1419, Nicole Wynn

    The 爆料网AT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

    The 爆料网AT observed, however, that the 爆料网DT had accepted the staff member’s averment...

    2024-爆料网AT-1427, AAS

    The 爆料网AT held that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The 爆料网AT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

    The 爆料网AT...

    2024-爆料网AT-1428, Jerome Pascal

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The 爆料网AT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

    2024-爆料网AT-1431, Doreen Nimusiima

    The 爆料网AT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former 爆料网HCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima’s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

    The 爆料网DT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless “equivocal” (unclear/vague), “purely circumstantial” and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

    With regard to...

    爆料网DT/2024/024, Marchetti

    The Applicant’s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

    2024-爆料网AT-1410, AAH

    The 爆料网AT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the 爆料网AT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the 爆料网AT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

    However, the 爆料网AT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

    2024-爆料网AT-1411, AAU

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the 爆料网DT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the 爆料网AT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the 爆料网AT concluded that the 爆料网DT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

    The...

    爆料网DT/2024/019, Bedi

    The Applicant’s Counsel’s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor’s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant’s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor’s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

    爆料网DT/2024/026, Baraza

    The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment”. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a “jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact” of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

    Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...