爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 561 - 570 of 1669
2010-爆料网AT-018, Mahdi

On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB’s recommendation. 爆料网AT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. 爆料网AT specifically held that the JAB’s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

2010-爆料网AT-063, Costa

爆料网AT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. 爆料网AT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. 爆料网AT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

2010-爆料网AT-012, Parker

In considering the Appellant’s appeal, 爆料网AT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant’s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT also found that 爆料网DT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. 爆料网AT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant’s situation, involving the 爆料网HCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

2010-爆料网AT-013, Schook

爆料网AT found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run “from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ” As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT set aside 爆料网DT’s judgment and remanded the case back to 爆料网DT to have the...

2010-爆料网AT-014, Luvai

爆料网AT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one’s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. 爆料网AT also affirmed the findings of fact by 爆料网DT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...

2010-爆料网AT-064, Kasmani

爆料网AT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have 爆料网AT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. 爆料网AT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having 爆料网AT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

2010-爆料网AT-011, Kasmani

爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. 爆料网AT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网AT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant’s...

2010-爆料网AT-037, Castelli

爆料网AT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that 爆料网DT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli’s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. 爆料网AT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member’s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. 爆料网AT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. 爆料网AT held...

2010-爆料网AT-067, Diagne et al.

爆料网AT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). 爆料网AT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. 爆料网AT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. 爆料网AT held that no error in fact or in law was made by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

2010-爆料网AT-009, James

爆料网AT considered Mr James’ appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed Mr James’ appeal that 爆料网DT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. 爆料网AT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. 爆料网AT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...