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 621 - 630 of 1867
    2019-爆料网AT-948Corr.1, Bezziccheri

    As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant’s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the 爆料网DT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, 爆料网AT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before 爆料网DT. On the Appellant’s motion to strike assertions and evidence, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant’s Power of Attorney document, and...

    2019-爆料网AT-969, Argyrou

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration’s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

    2019-爆料网AT-970, Adnan-Tolon

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined to receive the Appellant’s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before 爆料网DT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. 爆料网AT held that knowledge of the...

    2019-爆料网AT-975, Reilly

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that 爆料网DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal’s processes and within the 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. 爆料网AT also noted that it does...

    2019-爆料网AT-972, Al Othman

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim’s credibility. 爆料网AT held that, contrary to 爆料网RWA DT’s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant’s credibility, in particular...

    2019-爆料网AT-962, Amineddine

    As preliminary matters, 爆料网AT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant’s in-session motion, viewed by 爆料网AT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

    2019-爆料网AT-959, Wesslund

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. 爆料网AT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to 爆料网DT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to 爆料网DT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-968, Fortis

    On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant’s ex-wife from his final emoluments, 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

    2019-爆料网AT-967, Olowo-Okello

    On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant’s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the “decision” of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant’s official status file and to block him from being rehired, 爆料网AT held there was no final, appealable...

    2019-爆料网AT-943, Hassan

    爆料网AT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, 爆料网AT clarified, did not mean that 爆料网DT had dismissed the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with 爆料网DT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the 爆料网AT judgment.