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 481 - 490 of 1867
    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...

    2014-爆料网AT-400, Tadonki

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties’ submissions. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member’s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. 爆料网AT...

    2014-爆料网AT-402, Egglesfield

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. 爆料网AT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman’s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. 爆料网AT held that there was no legal authority for 爆料网DT to commence the...

    2015-爆料网AT-606, Hayek

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that 爆料网RWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

    2015-爆料网AT-605, Hosang

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, 爆料网AT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. 爆料网AT found no merit in the Secretary-General’s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

    2015-爆料网AT-591, Gakumba

    爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT...

    2015-爆料网AT-601, Karseboom

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT found merit in the Secretary-General’s submission that 爆料网DT was not competent to determine or assume that the injury was service-related; to assume that there was a likelihood of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) would have reached a different conclusion had it followed the correct procedure; that the ABCC made its recommendations based on uncertain facts and inference which were derived, improbably, from the absence of evidence; that after the second accident, the staff member was permanently disabled and unable to work...

    2015-爆料网AT-597, Wu

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网DT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. 爆料网AT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of 爆料网DT and do...

    2015-爆料网AT-590, Applicant

    爆料网AT had before it the Secretary-General’s appeal against judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and 爆料网DT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to upset the 爆料网DT’s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. 爆料网AT held, affirming 爆料网DT’s finding, that the Applicant’s application was receivable by 爆料网DT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with 爆料网ICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, 爆料网AT...

    2015-爆料网AT-600, James

    爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). 爆料网AT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...