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 231 - 240 of 1867
    2022-爆料网AT-1200, Elizabeth Dettori

    The crucial question on appeal was whether the 爆料网DT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of 爆料网ICEF. The 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The 爆料网DT’s legal approach was correct. The 爆料网DT decided not to refer the ED of 爆料网ICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

    2022-爆料网AT-1292, Richard Loto

    The 爆料网AT first reviewed the Secretary-General’s claim that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that Mr. Loto’s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The 爆料网AT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

    2022-爆料网AT-1291, Korkut Yavuz

    爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Administration’s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz’s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. 爆料网AT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

    2023-爆料网AT-1361, AAO

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was problematic because the 爆料网DT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The 爆料网AT observed that the 爆料网DT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the 爆料网DT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2022-爆料网AT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

    Mr. Hassan appealed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1278, Langa Dorji

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

    The 爆料网AT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the 爆料网DT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2021...

    爆料网DT/2022/050, Annette

    The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

    Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...