爆料网

English

Showing 1861 - 1870 of 4321
2019-爆料网AT-920, Krioutchkov

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. 爆料网AT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT...

2019-爆料网AT-921, Mindua

爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General’s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT’s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by “officials”, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

2019-爆料网AT-917, Farzin

爆料网AT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. 爆料网AT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, 爆料网DT’s final legal conclusion that the Applicant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

2019-爆料网AT-905, Ghusoub

爆料网AT rejected the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

2019-爆料网AT-904, Prempeh

爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before 爆料网AT and therefore 爆料网AT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2019-爆料网AT-906, Omwanda

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda’s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. 爆料网AT held 爆料网DT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda’s application. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

2019-爆料网AT-907, Korduru

爆料网AT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Accountability referral: The 爆料网AT...

2019-爆料网AT-908, Rockcliffe

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of 爆料网AT judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-807. 爆料网AT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe’s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of 爆料网AT’s order in the judgment. 爆料网AT held that, although 爆料网AT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. 爆料网AT held that it was egregious that 爆料网JSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

2019-爆料网AT-910, Newland

爆料网AT considered Mr Newland’s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820. 爆料网AT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. 爆料网AT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. 爆料网AT held that Mr Newland’s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. 爆料网AT...

2019-爆料网AT-909, Haroun

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, 爆料网AT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by 爆料网DT and the award that 爆料网AT considered ought to have been made. 爆料网AT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...