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 471 - 480 of 1867
    2014-爆料网AT-454, Wang

    爆料网AT considered Mr Wang’s appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the evidence before 爆料网DT supported the Administration’s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. 爆料网AT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

    2014-爆料网AT-460, Ngokeng

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. 爆料网DT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. 爆料网DT/2013/101. 爆料网AT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng’s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng’s performance appraisal. 爆料网AT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer’s comment on Mr Ngokeng’s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...

    2014-爆料网AT-437, Charles

    爆料网AT considered two appeals by the staff member of 爆料网DT Order Nos. 109 and 110. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before 爆料网DT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, 爆料网AT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. 爆料网AT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. 爆料网AT held that there was no statutory...

    2014-爆料网AT-433, 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-415, Santos

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give 爆料网DT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. 爆料网AT held that it was not within 爆料网DT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

    2014-爆料网AT-404, Bauza Mercere

    爆料网AT held that there was no reason to interfere with 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving 爆料网DT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

    2014-爆料网AT-409, Nogueira

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. 爆料网AT held that it was unnecessary for 爆料网DT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. 爆料网AT held that the error committed by 爆料网DT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

    2014-爆料网AT-405, Obino

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2014-爆料网AT-410, Igbinedion

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established 爆料网AT jurisprudence. However, 爆料网AT also held that parties before 爆料网DT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by 爆料网DT remained legally valid until such time as 爆料网AT vacated it. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with 爆料网DT’s order was vexatious. 爆料网AT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal in part.

    Accountability Referral: The 爆料网AT...