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 351 - 360 of 1867
    2010-爆料网AT-049, Planas

    爆料网AT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and...

    2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, Nasr Ishak

    In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...

    2010-爆料网AT-032, Calvani

    爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the 爆料网DT order as not receivable, finding that 爆料网DT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. 爆料网AT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

    2010-爆料网AT-044, Solanki

    爆料网AT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. 爆料网AT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

    2010-爆料网AT-043, Mezoui

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new 爆料网DT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. 爆料网AT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to 爆料网DT for consideration on merits. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a...

    2010-爆料网AT-042, Wu

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). 爆料网AT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...

    2010-爆料网AT-011, Kasmani

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. 爆料网AT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网AT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant’s...

    2010-爆料网AT-067, Diagne et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). 爆料网AT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. 爆料网AT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. 爆料网AT held that no error in fact or in law was made by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2010-爆料网AT-036, Costa

    爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the 爆料网DT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/052) in her request for 爆料网DT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the 爆料网DT Statute could not be disregarded. 爆料网AT approved judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of 爆料网DT in Rosca. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-008, Onana

    The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana’s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. 爆料网AT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. 爆料网AT...