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 661 - 670 of 1867
    2020-爆料网AT-1008, Fosse

    爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that it was well within 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction and that 爆料网DT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, 爆料网AT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

    2020-爆料网AT-1001, Applicant

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT found no errors in the 爆料网DT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. 爆料网AT found no errors in 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

    2020-爆料网AT-1000, Ross

    爆料网AT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the 爆料网HCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

    2020-爆料网AT-999, Wilson

    爆料网AT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that 爆料网DT had made to its own judgment. 爆料网AT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the 爆料网DT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT granted the Appellant’s application and ordered the correction of the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-998, Barud

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

    2020-爆料网AT-986, Sawenja

    On the termination decision, 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, 爆料网AT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

    2020-爆料网AT-990, Mpacko

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother’s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. 爆料网AT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed...

    2020-爆料网AT-987, Avramoski

    爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before 爆料网DT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

    2020-爆料网AT-979, Igunda

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. 爆料网AT held that, regardless of whether 爆料网DT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute precluded an appeal to 爆料网AT if 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Order.

    2020-爆料网AT-984, Atuya

    爆料网AT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant’s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. 爆料网AT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before 爆料网DT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. 爆料网AT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...