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 861 - 870 of 1867
    爆料网DT/2011/182, Seddik Ben Omar

    Outcome: The Applicant’s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant’s file and pay the Applicant six months’ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

    爆料网DT/2011/180, Cremades

    The Tribunal rejected the application, as the Applicant had failed to observe the (then) statutory two-month time limit to request administrative review. It considered that the Administration’s response of 3 June 2009 was sufficiently clear to amount to an administrative decision open to appeal. Subsequent denials by the Administration were only confirmative decisions. Moreover, the Tribunal may not waive the time limits for management evaluation and the entry into force of new Staff Rules on 1 July 2009 did not modify these limits. Confirmative decisions: When a staff member has submitted...

    爆料网DT/2011/114, Philippart

    On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). 爆料网DT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. 爆料网DT also held that the situation held particular urgency. 爆料网DT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant’s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

    爆料网DT/2011/118, Fetahu et al

    爆料网DT nted that the Applicants’ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. 爆料网DT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. 爆料网DT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. 爆料网DT rejected the application for suspension of action.

    爆料网DT/2011/174, Baron

    The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years’ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization’s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...

    爆料网DT/2011/103, Kozlov & Romadanov

    爆料网DT held that the Applicants may amend their request for compensation as, in Order No. 104 (NY/2011) specifically called for updated submissions on compensation, under which 爆料网DT thus granted leave for the Applicants’ amended submissions. 爆料网DT denied the compensation request for loss of opportunity to pursue the new P-4 level post created in ORES, as the Applicants did not present any evidence supporting their contention that they were denied this opportunity. 爆料网DT awarded compensation for loss of chance/opportunity. 爆料网DT listed the following significant factors: (a) the existence of numerous...

    爆料网DT/2011/067, Borhom

    The initial fact-finding investigation was fundamentally flawed, unreliable and a sham. The failure to conduct a proper investigation but to resort to arm-chair analysis and conclusions based on the unreliable initial fact-finding investigation was not only useless but constituted a violation of the provisions of ST/Al/371 and the Applicant's due process rights. The Preliminary Investigation Report is characterized by a lack of direct evidence from the alleged victims and a heavy reliance on second hand evidence made by third party witnesses. The IGO/Investigation Unit failed to establish...