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 541 - 550 of 1867
    2016-爆料网AT-633, Bharati

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-638, Maiga

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT further rejected the staff member’s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

    2016-爆料网AT-631, Thomas et al.

    爆料网AT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due...

    2016-爆料网AT-632, Jaishankar

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-630, Bhatia et al.

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-650, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

    2016-爆料网AT-628, Taneja et al.

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-629, Prasad et al.

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-648, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-爆料网AT-647, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...