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 421 - 430 of 1867
    2012-爆料网AT-211, Scheepers

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. 爆料网AT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant’s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before 爆料网DT and held that 爆料网DT did not err in rejecting the Appellant’s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant’s reliance on erroneous advice...

    2012-爆料网AT-201, Obdeijn

    The Appellant contested the 爆料网DT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. 爆料网AT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal’s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT finding that the Administration’s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

    2012-爆料网AT-196, Odio-Benito

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s application was submitted to 爆料网DT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claims that the 爆料网DT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

    2012-爆料网AT-197, Ndjadi

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before 爆料网DT. However, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the 爆料网DT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

    2013-爆料网AT-324, El-Komy

    爆料网AT held that 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; 爆料网AT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...

    2012-爆料网AT-191, Muratore

    爆料网AT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant’s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered “exceptional circumstances,” justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. 爆料网AT noted that an applicant’s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. 爆料网AT was not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments upon appeal and did not find any...

    2013-爆料网AT-387, Gakumba

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. 爆料网AT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because 爆料网DT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years’ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba’s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. 爆料网AT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year’s net base salary. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

    2013-爆料网AT-389, Reid

    爆料网AT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, 爆料网DT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the 爆料网DT’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2013-爆料网AT-385, Samuel Thambiah

    爆料网AT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that 爆料网DT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on 爆料网DT’s part. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with 爆料网DT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

    2013-爆料网AT-380, Cooke

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT considered that 爆料网DT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke’s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. 爆料网AT held that when it determines that 爆料网DT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. 爆料网AT clarified that this did not...