爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 1151 - 1160 of 1669
2016-爆料网AT-651, Choi

爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP. 爆料网AT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to 爆料网AT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to 爆料网AT and the moving party. 爆料网AT...

2016-爆料网AT-652, Nikolarakis

爆料网AT addressed the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had improperly relied on “logic” to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

2016-爆料网AT-653, AlRifai

爆料网AT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant’s post). 爆料网AT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. 爆料网AT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade 爆料网AT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the...

2016-爆料网AT-654, Faye

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by 爆料网DT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

2016-爆料网AT-655, Elhabil

爆料网AT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/100, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found that a 爆料网RWA staff member cannot bring an application against the 爆料网 Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, 爆料网AT reiterated that 爆料网AT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction...

2016-爆料网AT-641, Chemingui

爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, 爆料网AT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

2016-爆料网AT-642, Savadogo

爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. 爆料网AT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or 爆料网AT to conduct a fresh investigation. 爆料网AT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the 爆料网AT RoP and no...

2016-爆料网AT-643, Harb

爆料网AT held that there was merit in the Appellant’s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

2016-爆料网AT-645, Fiala

爆料网AT found that the execution of the 爆料网DT judgment No. 爆料网DT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-516 wherein 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion seeking execution was properly filed before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. 爆料网AT considered that the only...

2016-爆料网AT-633, Bharati

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