爆料网

Delay

  • Access to justice
  • Delay
  • Investigation
  • Right to a hearing
  • Right to appeal
  • Right to comment/respond
  • Right to confront complainant
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 25
    2011-爆料网AT-143, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant’s formal complaint. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of 爆料网DT with regard to the Appellant’s request for an investigation. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the award by 爆料网DT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant’s separation from service was not the subject of...

    2013-爆料网AT-370, Bi Bea

    爆料网AT vacated 爆料网DT’s award of CHF 5,000. 爆料网AT held that, while 爆料网DT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Secretary-General’s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that, before 爆料网DT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

    2013-爆料网AT-287, McKay

    爆料网AT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. 爆料网AT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the 爆料网IFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay’s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. 爆料网AT held that it was correct to conclude, as 爆料网DT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

    2014-爆料网AT-416, Charles

    爆料网AT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-爆料网AT-416. 爆料网AT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. 爆料网AT held that it was not open to 爆料网DT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

    2014-爆料网AT-401, Zeid

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member’s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. 爆料网AT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to respond to staff members’ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

    2015-爆料网AT-514, Abu Nada

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant’s complaint that 爆料网RWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by 爆料网RWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the 爆料网RWA DT when it determined these...

    2018-爆料网AT-817, Kisia

    The Secretary-General appealed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the 爆料网CB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. 爆料网AT granted the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

    爆料网DT/2013/162, Benfield-Laporte

    The 爆料网DT considered that the Applicant’s initial complaint was meeting all the requirements contained in sec. 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. It noted that the decision not to initiate a formal fact-finding investigation was made only six months after the complaint had been lodged hence it did not meet the requirement of ‘promptness’ contained in sec. 5.3 and sec. 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Further, the 爆料网DT found that the course of action chosen by the ASG/OHRM, which consisted in asking first the alleged offender for his views, had no legal basis in ST/SGB/2008/5. Having considered the definition of the...

    爆料网DT/2013/135, Gehr

    Decision of a technical body: A rebuttal panel should be considered as a technical body as per the provision of staff rules 11.2(b). Consequently, a decision of a rebuttal panel is not subject to management evaluation as a prerequisite before filing an application before the Tribunal. The preeminent purpose of management evaluation is to reconsider the initial decisions taken by the Administration. Where such reconsideration is delegated to a specialized body, there is no need for further administrative review. Rebuttal panel: The panel’s mandate is fixed for two years and ST/AI/2002/3 did not...

    爆料网DT/2014/117, Ivanov

    The Tribunal found that the USG/DESA complied with ST/SGB/2008/5 by closing the case and providing the Applicant with a summary of the Investigation Panel’s findings and conclusions. However the applicable mandatory time limits for assessing the complaint, appointing the panel and submitting the final investigation report were not respected. The Applicant is awarded a compensation in the total amount of USD2,300. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not gather sufficient evidence or erred in reaching its findings and conclusions presented in the report...