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 391 - 400 of 1867
    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.

    2011-爆料网AT-103, Abboud

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the 爆料网DT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which 爆料网AT affirmed in its entirety.

    Accountability Referral: The 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

    2012-爆料网AT-252, Khambatta

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where 爆料网DT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that even though 爆料网DT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2012-爆料网AT-275, Cooke

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the 爆料网DT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the 爆料网DT...

    2012-爆料网AT-271, Cremades

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2012-爆料网AT-268, Bangoura

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. 爆料网AT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

    2012-爆料网AT-263, Larkin

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2011/179. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

    2012-爆料网AT-253, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in concluding that the Administration’s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant’s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration’s subsequent change of approach. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims in this regard had become moot. 爆料网AT held that, in rendering the Appellant’s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, 爆料网DT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

    2012-爆料网AT-267, Achkar

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

    2012-爆料网AT-264, Seddik Ben Omar

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. 爆料网AT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the 爆料网DT decision under appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. 爆料网AT held that the evidence...