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 641 - 650 of 1867
    2019-爆料网AT-917, Farzin

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. 爆料网AT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, 爆料网DT’s final legal conclusion that the Applicant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

    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-909, Haroun

    Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, 爆料网AT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by 爆料网DT and the award that 爆料网AT considered ought to have been made. 爆料网AT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

    2019-爆料网AT-907, Korduru

    爆料网AT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
    Accountability referral: The 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-904, Prempeh

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before 爆料网AT and therefore 爆料网AT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-896, Harris

    The 爆料网DT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris’ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, 爆料网AT found no reason to differ from the 爆料网DT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

    2020-爆料网AT-1050, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to reject Hamdan’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1051, Garbo

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly rejected the Appellant’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1052, Ahmad

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held...

    2020-爆料网AT-1053, Gido

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to hold that Mr Gido’s appointment was not terminated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly rejected Mr Gido’s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. 爆料网AT held that Mr...