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 571 - 580 of 1867
    2017-爆料网AT-722, Auda

    爆料网AT had before it an appeal against both 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.1 and 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant’s application for interim measures by the 爆料网DT and certain conduct by the 爆料网DT and its Registrar. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s criticisms of the 爆料网DT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

    2017-爆料网AT-724, Mihai

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that although 爆料网DT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. 爆料网AT awarded three months’ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

    2017-爆料网AT-725, Baracungana

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. 爆料网AT held that the only proper course for 爆料网DT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General’s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

    2017-爆料网AT-727, Khan

    爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the 爆料网DT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in holding the Appellant’s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

    2017-爆料网AT-739, Fayek

    爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. 爆料网AT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

    2017-爆料网AT-713, Tsoneva

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. 爆料网AT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by not...

    2017-爆料网AT-742, Kallon

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal by a full bench of 爆料网AT. The majority of the judges upheld 爆料网DT’s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for 爆料网DT’s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

    2017-爆料网AT-711, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT findings such as to warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-712, Krioutchkov

    On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that there was no fault with the 爆料网DT’s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that 爆料网DT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. 爆料网AT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings 爆料网AT would not...

    2017-爆料网AT-714, Tsoneva

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. 爆料网AT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by not...