爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 1531 - 1540 of 1669
2020-爆料网AT-1000, Ross

爆料网AT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the 爆料网HCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

2020-爆料网AT-1001, Applicant

爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT found no errors in the 爆料网DT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. 爆料网AT found no errors in 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

2020-爆料网AT-1033, Negussie

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses’ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that 爆料网DT...

2020-爆料网AT-994, Rodriguez

爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, 爆料网AT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, 爆料网AT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

2020-爆料网AT-996, Oglesby

爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-914 from Mr Oglesby. 爆料网AT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the 爆料网 Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT opined that it was within the combined powers of the 爆料网JSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

2020-爆料网AT-997, Clemente

爆料网AT considered an application by 爆料网JSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. 爆料网AT opined that, in actuality, the 爆料网JSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that 爆料网AT erred in making an award of interest, which 爆料网JSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of 爆料网AT are final and without appeal, 爆料网AT held that this attempt to...

2020-爆料网AT-998, Barud

爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

2020-爆料网AT-999, Wilson

爆料网AT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that 爆料网DT had made to its own judgment. 爆料网AT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the 爆料网DT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT granted the Appellant’s application and ordered the correction of the 爆料网AT judgment.

2020-爆料网AT-1023, Sirhan

爆料网AT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. 爆料网AT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan’s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with 爆料网RWA was reasonable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring 爆料网RWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...