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 631 - 640 of 1867
    2019-爆料网AT-946, Tosi

    Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. 爆料网DT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

    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.

    2019-爆料网AT-941, Dieng

    爆料网AT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to 爆料网DT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT therefore initially made no error of law in...

    2019-爆料网AT-936, Diallo

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify 爆料网AT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. 爆料网AT held that an application before 爆料网DT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. 爆料网AT held that the...

    2019-爆料网AT-931, El-Awar

    The Appellant’s appeal primarily challenged the decision of 爆料网DT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. 爆料网AT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. 爆料网AT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant’s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-926, Ross 2021-03-18

    爆料网AT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. 爆料网AT considered Mr Ross’s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. 爆料网AT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err...

    2019-爆料网AT-922, Haq and Kane

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, 爆料网AT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

    2019-爆料网AT-925, Kortes

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. 爆料网AT held that the issue was whether 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

    2019-爆料网AT-913, Siddiqi

    爆料网AT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill “some” staff members. 爆料网AT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

    2019-爆料网AT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT agreed that the delay was unfort爆料网ATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...