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 551 - 560 of 1867
    2016-爆料网AT-649, 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 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 request...

    2016-爆料网AT-618, Subramanian et al.

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

    2016-爆料网AT-619, Pavicic

    爆料网AT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. 爆料网AT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-620, Seyfollahzadeh

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the evidence showed that 爆料网DT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

    2016-爆料网AT-622, Aly et al.

    爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, 爆料网AT reversed 爆料网DT’s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...

    2016-爆料网AT-615, Ejaz, Elizabeth, Cherian and Cone

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. 爆料网AT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

    2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...

    2016-爆料网AT-613, Gehr

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that despite acknowledging that under 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, 爆料网DT declined to follow its jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in its entirety.

    2017-爆料网AT-809, Mbaa

    爆料网AT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before 爆料网DT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. 爆料网AT held that failing...

    2017-爆料网AT-806, Maloof

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. 爆料网AT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the decision to...