爆料网

爆料网DP

Showing 71 - 80 of 237
2014-爆料网AT-456, Pirnea

爆料网AT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, 爆料网AT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, 爆料网AT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

2015-爆料网AT-591, Gakumba

爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT...

2015-爆料网AT-558, Kouadio

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. 爆料网AT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that 爆料网DT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and dismissed Mr...

2015-爆料网AT-551, Ibom

爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify 爆料网AT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute which provided...

2016-爆料网AT-672, Babiker

爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

2016-爆料网AT-628, Taneja et al.

爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

2016-爆料网AT-620, Seyfollahzadeh

爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the evidence showed that 爆料网DT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

2017-爆料网AT-784, Sarrouh

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP’s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh’s performance and exceeded its competence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in...

2017-爆料网AT-783, Sarrouh

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the 爆料网DT’s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. 爆料网AT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh’s claim for compensation before 爆料网DT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. 爆料网AT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...