爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 511 - 520 of 1669
2010-爆料网AT-076, Kasyanov

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General’s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment on merits only became final when 爆料网DT issued the judgment on compensation. 爆料网AT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

2010-爆料网AT-060, Wasserstorm

爆料网AT, applying Bertucci (2010-爆料网AT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against 爆料网DT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of 爆料网DT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. 爆料网AT further held that the appeal against 爆料网DT’s order for production of the OIOS...

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-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-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-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-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-072, Samardzic

爆料网AT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with 爆料网MIK. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how 爆料网DT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

2010-爆料网AT-052, Ardisson

爆料网AT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. 爆料网AT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, 爆料网DT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. 爆料网AT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...