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 311 - 320 of 1867
    爆料网DT/2022/055, Applicant Applicant

    The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal’s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-爆料网AT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

    爆料网DT/2022/051, Arvizu Trevino

    Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that “[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied” (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant’s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

    爆料网DT/2022/048, Applicant

    A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01’s medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

    The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant’s handling of V01’s complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant’s due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

    Although not constitutive...

    爆料网DT/2022/043, Banaj

    The administrative decision to close a staff member’s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
    The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

    2022-爆料网AT-1220, Dzenan Viteskic

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. 爆料网AT held that joint representation by 爆料网-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and 爆料网MIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. 爆料网AT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). 爆料网AT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before 爆料网DT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

    2022-爆料网AT-1269, Ashok Kumar Nigam

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. 爆料网AT held that to the extent that the 爆料网DT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, 爆料网DT did not err in fact or law and 爆料网AT upheld such conclusions. 爆料网AT held that there were errors by 爆料网DT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the 爆料网DT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

    2022-爆料网AT-1266, Korkut Yavuz

    The only issue on appeal is whether the 爆料网DT judgment’s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the 爆料网DT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the 爆料网DT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1265, Faraj El-Awar

    The 爆料网DT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the 爆料网DT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General’s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General’s appeal cannot succeed. 爆料网DT's finding that 爆料网-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

    2022-爆料网AT-1262, Egor Ovcharenko et al., Danield Edward Kutner et al.

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the 爆料网DT and had no standing. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held...

    2022-爆料网AT-1247, Rania Mohammed Dajani

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. 爆料网AT held that to allow the Appellant’s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...