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 531 - 540 of 1867
    2016-爆料网AT-671, Auda

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that while only final judgments of the 爆料网DT are appealable, exceptions may be made when 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. 爆料网AT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute 爆料网DT exceeding its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT further noted that 爆料网DT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

    2016-爆料网AT-672, Babiker

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

    2016-爆料网AT-661, Kalashnik

    爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding and held that “the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision” all support the conclusion that the Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. 爆料网AT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member’s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2016-爆料网AT-609, Siri

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-657, Faye

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. 爆料网AT held that there was...

    2016-爆料网AT-654, Faye

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by 爆料网DT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

    2016-爆料网AT-655, Elhabil

    爆料网AT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/100, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found that a 爆料网RWA staff member cannot bring an application against the 爆料网 Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, 爆料网AT reiterated that 爆料网AT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction...

    2016-爆料网AT-651, Choi

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP. 爆料网AT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to 爆料网AT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to 爆料网AT and the moving party. 爆料网AT...

    2016-爆料网AT-644, Survo

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since 爆料网DT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). 爆料网AT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

    2016-爆料网AT-641, Chemingui

    爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, 爆料网AT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.