爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 651 - 660 of 1669
2011-爆料网AT-116, Iskandar

爆料网AT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the 爆料网, through 爆料网AMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by 爆料网AMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. 爆料网AT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. 爆料网AT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the 爆料网, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

2011-爆料网AT-118, Abu-Hawaila

爆料网AT was not persuaded that 爆料网DT erred in its judgment. 爆料网AT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to 爆料网DT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. 爆料网AT held that the settlement...

2011-爆料网AT-117, Lutta

The Appellant appealed the amount of compensation awarded for loss of chance. 爆料网AT noted that there was no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case turned on its facts. 爆料网AT noted that it would generally defer to the trial court’s discretion. 爆料网AT did not accept the Appellant’s argument that the trial court was required to assess the percentage chances that he would have been selected: 爆料网AT held that while it had approved that procedure as one method of assessing damages, it respected the opinion of the trial judge as to how to determine...

2011-爆料网AT-112, Abbasi

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. 爆料网AT held that the Administration applied 爆料网ICEF’s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi’s favour. 爆料网AT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered – or even favoured for reasons of gender – in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by 爆料网ICEF during the selection process. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

2011-爆料网AT-111, Sprauten

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. 爆料网AT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed...

2011-爆料网AT-110, Abbassi

The staff member appealed on the ground that 爆料网DT had made errors of fact in the judgment. 爆料网AT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, 爆料网AT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by 爆料网DT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the 爆料网DT’s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

2011-爆料网AT-107, Chen

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. 爆料网AT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to 爆料网 staff. 爆料网AT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. 爆料网AT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that 爆料网DT awarded damages from the correct date. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s allegation that 爆料网DT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

2011-爆料网AT-108, Ajdini et al.

爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as 爆料网AT had consistently held that 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the 爆料网DT Order.

2011-爆料网AT-161, Kasyanov

爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by 爆料网AT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. 爆料网AT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the 爆料网AT judgment.