爆料网

爆料网AT

Showing 821 - 830 of 1669
2013-爆料网AT-331, Faraj

爆料网AT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA’s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. 爆料网AT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant’s claim that the 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules...

2013-爆料网AT-332, McCluskey

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. 爆料网AT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. 爆料网AT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

2013-爆料网AT-334, Konate

爆料网AT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by 爆料网DT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of 爆料网FPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the 爆料网FPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly declined to accept...

2013-爆料网AT-326, Jibara

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. 爆料网AT recalled that it was not the role of 爆料网DT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. 爆料网AT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, 爆料网AT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. 爆料网AT...

2013-爆料网AT-327, Tiwathia

爆料网AT noted that appeals from 爆料网DT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if 爆料网DT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal.

2013-爆料网AT-329, Perez-Soto

Noting the broad discretion of 爆料网DT with respect to case management, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the contention that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, 爆料网AT noted that these matters had been...

2013-爆料网AT-330, Nwuke

爆料网AT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/116. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of 爆料网DT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT decision. 爆料网AT noted that even if the 爆料网DT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT...