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 431 - 440 of 1867
    2013-爆料网AT-349, Servas

    爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with 爆料网DT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

    2013-爆料网AT-376, Williams

    Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute, 爆料网AT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited 爆料网AT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. 爆料网AT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

    2013-爆料网AT-373, Czaran

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether 爆料网DT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, 爆料网AT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, 爆料网DT was not competent to consider the issue...

    2013-爆料网AT-370, Bi Bea

    爆料网AT vacated 爆料网DT’s award of CHF 5,000. 爆料网AT held that, while 爆料网DT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Secretary-General’s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that, before 爆料网DT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

    2013-爆料网AT-368, Roig

    爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. 爆料网AT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

    2013-爆料网AT-365, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

    2013-爆料网AT-345, Neault

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the 爆料网DT within 90 calendar days of an applicant’s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to 爆料网DT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

    2013-爆料网AT-347, Appleton

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held by majority that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. 爆料网AT held that it was entirely appropriate for 爆料网DT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the 爆料网DT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton’s likely prospects of success. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that Mr Appleton’s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

    2013-爆料网AT-360, McIlwraith

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/131. 爆料网AT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/129 and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/130. 爆料网AT held that, since it had rescinded the 爆料网DT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. 爆料网AT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

    2013-爆料网AT-361, Ngoma-Mabiala

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the “Observations” of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a 爆料网DT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, “Observations” in the manner in which it did. 爆料网AT held that, in light of the 爆料网DT’s determination on the issue of receivability, 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to make “Observations” as it did. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and ordered that...