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 401 - 410 of 1867
    2012-爆料网AT-260, Rahman

    爆料网AT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, under Article 11.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited 爆料网DT from extending the deadline for...

    2012-爆料网AT-258, Kananura

    爆料网AT held that it would not lightly interfere with the 爆料网DT’s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on 爆料网DT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. 爆料网AT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 爆料网DT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2012-爆料网AT-249, di Giacomo

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the 爆料网DT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the 爆料网. 爆料网AT held that the access to 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2012-爆料网AT-247, Mushema

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT held that, in the present case, 爆料网DT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years’ net base salary. 爆料网AT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the 爆料网DT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. 爆料网AT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

    2012-爆料网AT-256, Benchebbak

    爆料网AT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the 爆料网DT Orders. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. 爆料网AT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

    2012-爆料网AT-246, Mwamsaku

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. 爆料网AT held that, in the present case, 爆料网DT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years’ net base salary. 爆料网AT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the 爆料网DT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. 爆料网AT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

    2012-爆料网AT-244, Bali

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, 爆料网DT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. 爆料网AT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, 爆料网DT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. 爆料网AT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

    2012-爆料网AT-243, Hersh

    爆料网AT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal on the basis that 爆料网DT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

    2012-爆料网AT-242, Charles

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and 爆料网DT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in affirming the JAB’s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

    2012-爆料网AT-238, Massabni

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...