爆料网

爆料网RWA DT Statute

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 71 - 80 of 127
    2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...

    2016-爆料网AT-611, Chaaban

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s finding...

    2016-爆料网AT-610, Rahman

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

    2017-爆料网AT-779, Abu Hweidi et al.

    Ar爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. 爆料网AT held that the inference drawn by 爆料网RWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

    2017-爆料网AT-773, Ali

    爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网RWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s contention that 爆料网RWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of 爆料网RWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the 爆料网RWA DT Statute prevents 爆料网RWA DT from receiving a case which...

    2018-爆料网AT-887, Elayyan

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. 爆料网AT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. 爆料网AT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before 爆料网RWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that 爆料网RWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

    2018-爆料网AT-860, Sirhan

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. 爆料网AT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the 爆料网RWA DT and that...

    2018-爆料网AT-856, Abu Malluh et al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网RWA DT’s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, 爆料网AT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. 爆料网AT held that there was no room for 爆料网RWA DT to substitute its decision...

    2018-爆料网AT-854, Abu Nqairah

    爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, 爆料网AT...

    2018-爆料网AT-839, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA’s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. 爆料网AT accordingly found that 爆料网RWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant’s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant’s request for compensation, 爆料网AT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...