爆料网

Oral hearings

  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
    • Showing 61 - 70 of 114
    2024-爆料网AT-1437, Ibrahim Bah

    The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The 爆料网AT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

    The 爆料网AT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

    2024-爆料网AT-1408, Hydar Daniel Mlouk Majook

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT’s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the 爆料网DT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member did not have standing before the 爆料网DT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

    2023-爆料网AT-1406, Kamal Karki

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

    The 爆料网AT also denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

    The 爆料网AT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT observed that given...

    2023-爆料网AT-1402, Faten Hatim Al Dawoud

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT found that there was an error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the 爆料网RWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that the 爆料网RWA DT’s methodology of fixing...

    2023-爆料网AT-1388, Yassir Ibrahim Ali Haroun

    The 爆料网AT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2022/124 and that the 爆料网DT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The 爆料网AT nevertheless observed that the 爆料网DT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the 爆料网AT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT rightfully refused to...

    2023-爆料网AT-1384, Humphreys Timothy Shumba

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the 爆料网AT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

    2023-爆料网AT-1386, Didzis Melbiksis

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

    The 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

    2023-爆料网AT-1387, Mazin Ismail Sadieh

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the 爆料网RWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The 爆料网AT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

    The 爆料网AT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the 爆料网RWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The 爆料网AT also agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s...

    2023-爆料网AT-1383, Mazen Qassem

    As a preliminary matter, the 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Qassem’s request for an oral hearing. The 爆料网AT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”.

    The 爆料网AT found that since Mr. Qassem’s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

    2023-爆料网AT-1379, Leopold Camille Yodjeu Ntemde

    The 爆料网AT considered three appeals by the applicant.

    The 爆料网AT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the 爆料网AT.

    The 爆料网AT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...