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 321 - 330 of 1867
    2022-爆料网AT-1241, Dua Fayez Al Smadi

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. 爆料网AT found the 爆料网RWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi’s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi’s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been “finalized” or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

    2022-爆料网AT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the 爆料网DT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. 爆料网AT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2022-爆料网AT-1231, Sergio Arvizu Trevino

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. 爆料网AT held that to the extent 爆料网DT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal in part. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT Judgment by...

    2022-爆料网AT-1229, Jolanta Wozniak

    爆料网AT dismissed the appeal. 爆料网AT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. 爆料网AT found that in any case the 爆料网DT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1228, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the 爆料网DT Judgment asking that 爆料网AT reverse the 爆料网DT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman’s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

    2022-爆料网AT-1209, Edoardo Gianotti

    爆料网AT held the 爆料网DT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the 爆料网DT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

    2022-爆料网AT-1205, Roger Kuate

    Mr. Kuate appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. 爆料网AT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1201, Annette Guetgemann

    爆料网AT held that the decision of 爆料网DT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. 爆料网AT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant’s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1215, Secretary-General

    爆料网AT reversed the 爆料网DT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, 爆料网AT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the 爆料网DT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the 爆料网DT from assuming a...

    2013-爆料网AT-306-Corr.1, Wu

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that therefore 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before 爆料网AT for consideration. 爆料网AT held that...