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 371 - 380 of 1867
    2011-爆料网AT-172, Vangelova

    爆料网AT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. 爆料网AT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2011-爆料网AT-168, Yapa

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did...

    2011-爆料网AT-149, Verschuur

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. 爆料网AT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. 爆料网AT held that the Executive Director’s actions disregarded Mr Verschur’s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

    2011-爆料网AT-153, Ahmed

    爆料网AT affirmed the decision of 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. 爆料网AT concurred with the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member’s fixed-term appointment...

    2011-爆料网AT-151, Kaddoura

    As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err by failing to order the Appellant’s...

    2011-爆料网AT-150, Contreras

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months’ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. 爆料网AT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

    2011-爆料网AT-143, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant’s formal complaint. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of 爆料网DT with regard to the Appellant’s request for an investigation. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the award by 爆料网DT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant’s separation from service was not the subject of...