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 521 - 530 of 1867
    2016-爆料网AT-699, Vukasovic

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, specifically whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant’s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. 爆料网AT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

    2016-爆料网AT-693, Ruger

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the 爆料网AT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT found no reversible error in 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

    2016-爆料网AT-686, He

    爆料网AT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which 爆料网DT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to 爆料网DT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated 爆料网DT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT.

    2016-爆料网AT-691, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT considered Mr Krioutchkov’s appeal as well as the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov’s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that Mr Krioutchkov’s application was receivable by 爆料网DT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

    2016-爆料网AT-692, Gueben et al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further 爆料网AT found no merit in the Secretary-General’s argument that 爆料网DT improperly substituted its discretion for...

    2016-爆料网AT-694, Monarawila

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal, in which she alleged that 爆料网DT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. 爆料网AT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the 爆料网DT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. 爆料网AT also held...

    2016-爆料网AT-684, Ademagic et al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ademagic’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. 爆料网AT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

    2016-爆料网AT-679, Lemmonier

    爆料网AT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether 爆料网DT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-552), 爆料网AT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. 爆料网AT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

    2016-爆料网AT-682, Marcussen et al.

    爆料网AT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that 爆料网AT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

    2016-爆料网AT-683, Featherstonet al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member’s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment” and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. 爆料网AT also agreed with 爆料网DT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...