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 451 - 460 of 1867
    2013-爆料网AT-305, Kasmani

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT recalled that 爆料网AT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the 爆料网DT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. 爆料网AT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

    2013-爆料网AT-306, Ming Wu

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that therefore 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before 爆料网AT for consideration. 爆料网AT held that...

    2013-爆料网AT-297, Likuyani

    爆料网AT held that neither Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application before 爆料网DT was not receivable because 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. 爆料网AT held that, while it confirmed the 爆料网DT’s conclusion, it found that 爆料网DT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2013-爆料网AT-299, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the appeal as 爆料网DT correctly concluded that applications to 爆料网DT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2013-爆料网AT-293, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that applications to the 爆料网DT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. 爆料网AT found no merit in the Appellant’s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the 爆料网DT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

    2013-爆料网AT-282, Lauritzen

    On the alleged procedural error of the 爆料网DT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, 爆料网AT held that it was well within the competence of 爆料网DT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; 爆料网AT dismissed this ground of appeal. 爆料网AT held, affirming the finding of 爆料网DT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. 爆料网AT found no merit in the ground of appeal that 爆料网DT failed to consider that 爆料网HCR...

    2014-爆料网AT-433-Corr.1, Hersh

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

    2014-爆料网AT-488, Chocobar

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 233, which contended that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. 爆料网AT noted that Article 36 of the 爆料网DT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the 爆料网DT Order, as there was no case before 爆料网DT to which Article 36 could apply. 爆料网AT further noted that Article 36 does not allow 爆料网DT to...

    2014-爆料网AT-455, Guzman

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed Ms Guzman’s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General’s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by 爆料网AT. On the merits, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman’s amended Motion of...

    2014-爆料网AT-433/Corr.1, Hersh

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...