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 491 - 500 of 1867
    2015-爆料网AT-584, Gebremariam

    爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. 爆料网AT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his 爆料网DT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

    2015-爆料网AT-581, Selim

    爆料网AT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

    2015-爆料网AT-577, Staedler

    Noting that 爆料网DT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. 爆料网AT found no fault with 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were...

    2015-爆料网AT-566, Terragnolo

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. 爆料网AT found no errors of fact or law by 爆料网DT in awarding costs against the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

    2015-爆料网AT-572, Ivanov

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and 爆料网AT, therefore, upheld the findings of 爆料网DT on this point. On compensation, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was...

    2015-爆料网AT-561, Pirraku

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the 爆料网DT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. 爆料网AT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku’s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku’s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT held that the issue for 爆料网DT’s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. 爆料网AT held that the issues of...

    2015-爆料网AT-558, Kouadio

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. 爆料网AT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that 爆料网DT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and dismissed Mr...

    2015-爆料网AT-559, Khan

    爆料网AT held, in agreement with 爆料网DT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), 爆料网DT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

    2015-爆料网AT-562, Birya

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. 爆料网AT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. 爆料网AT held that...

    2015-爆料网AT-551, Ibom

    爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify 爆料网AT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute which provided...