爆料网

爆料网CTAD

Showing 1 - 10 of 44
2024-爆料网AT-1454, Ying Yu

The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu’s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The 爆料网AT emphasized that because Ms. Yu’s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the 爆料网DT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The 爆料网AT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the 爆料网AT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the 爆料网AT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

爆料网DT/2023/033, Yu

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal’s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

2022-爆料网AT-1188, Julieta Coca

爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member’s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was “re-employed” on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

2011-爆料网AT-187, Allen

爆料网AT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the 爆料网. 爆料网AT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. 爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2011-爆料网AT-141, Frohler

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s approach in considering the Appellant’s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was not the function of 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. 爆料网AT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in 爆料网DT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

2012-爆料网AT-277, Israbhakdi

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion “influenced” the Applicant’s decision to resign. 爆料网AT noted that, three months after the Applicant’s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. 爆料网AT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

2012-爆料网AT-260, Rahman

爆料网AT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, under Article 11.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited 爆料网DT from extending the deadline for...

2012-爆料网AT-238, Massabni

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

2013-爆料网AT-309, Asariotis

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, 爆料网AT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in...