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 501 - 510 of 1867
    2015-爆料网AT-555, Pedicelli

    爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. 爆料网AT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an “administrative decision” within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Based on the staff member’s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC’s renumbering exercise, 爆料网AT held...

    2015-爆料网AT-557, Kazazi

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s application for confidentiality. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. 爆料网AT held, in agreement with 爆料网DT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held, in agreement with 爆料网DT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

    2015-爆料网AT-544, Nartey

    爆料网AT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey’s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. 爆料网AT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT...

    2015-爆料网AT-547, Staedtler

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of 爆料网DT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

    2015-爆料网AT-534, Assale

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made an error of law when it applied 爆料网ICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by 爆料网ICEF’s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale’s performance was without legal basis. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

    2015-爆料网AT-525, Flores

    爆料网AT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. 爆料网AT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

    2015-爆料网AT-528, Rantisi

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General’s argument that 爆料网DT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, 爆料网AT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, 爆料网AT would not interfere with the discretion vested in 爆料网RWA DT to decide on remedy. 爆料网AT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General’s argument that...

    2015-爆料网AT-524, Utkina

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General’s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网DT that the previous judgment with the Appellant’s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

    2015-爆料网AT-526, Tintukasiri et al

    On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, 爆料网AT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. 爆料网AT held that: 爆料网DT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; 爆料网DT correctly applied the jurisprudence of 爆料网AT in the definition of...

    2015-爆料网AT-568, Lebouef et al.

    On the Appellants’ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent’s Answer, 爆料网AT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants’ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, 爆料网AT held that: insofar as the Appellants’ sought to impugn the 爆料网DT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...