爆料网

English

Showing 941 - 950 of 4321
2010-爆料网AT-059, Warren

The Secretary-General claimed that 爆料网DT had no power to award interest. 爆料网AT found that both 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

2010-爆料网AT-071, Kovacevic

爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to explain how 爆料网DT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT recalled that the 爆料网DT Statute precluded 爆料网DT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT Judgment.

2010-爆料网AT-058, Andati-Amwayi

爆料网AT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. 爆料网AT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. 爆料网AT held that the requirement for 爆料网 Office at Nairobi (爆料网ON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation’s staff medical insurance plan. 爆料网AT held that this requirement was of general...

2010-爆料网AT-057, Fagundes

爆料网AT noted that when the new system was created, 爆料网DT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that 爆料网DT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2010-爆料网AT-056, Shakir

爆料网AT concurred with 爆料网DT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to 爆料网DT and raised it for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the 爆料网AT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2010-爆料网AT-055, Hijaz

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that 爆料网DT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2010-爆料网AT-053, Xu

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General’s defence. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that the 爆料网DT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment. The case was remanded to 爆料网DT to be heard afresh.

2010-爆料网AT-050, Ishak

In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr. 1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...

2010-爆料网AT-049, Planas

爆料网AT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and...

2010-爆料网AT-070, Andrysek

爆料网AT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months’ net base salary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. 爆料网AT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (爆料网DT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. 爆料网AT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.