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 381 - 390 of 1867
    2011-爆料网AT-141, Frohler

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s approach in considering the Appellant’s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was not the function of 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. 爆料网AT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in 爆料网DT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

    2011-爆料网AT-139, Basenko

    爆料网AT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. 爆料网AT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. 爆料网AT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2011-爆料网AT-131, Cohen

    爆料网AT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the 爆料网DT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where 爆料网DT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

    2011-爆料网AT-123, Messinger

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant’s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that it was not persuaded that 爆料网DT made any errors of...

    2011-爆料网AT-121, Bertucci

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT stated the principle that 爆料网DT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes 爆料网DT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request 爆料网DT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

    2011-爆料网AT-120, Gabaldon

    爆料网AT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before 爆料网AT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration’s withdrawal of the offer of...

    2011-爆料网AT-116, Iskandar

    爆料网AT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the 爆料网, through 爆料网AMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by 爆料网AMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. 爆料网AT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. 爆料网AT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the 爆料网, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

    2011-爆料网AT-118, Abu-Hawaila

    爆料网AT was not persuaded that 爆料网DT erred in its judgment. 爆料网AT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to 爆料网DT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. 爆料网AT held that the settlement...

    2011-爆料网AT-108, Ajdini et al.

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as 爆料网AT had consistently held that 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the 爆料网DT Order.