爆料网

Procedure (first instance and 爆料网AT)

  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
    • Showing 101 - 110 of 262
    2024-爆料网AT-1438, Ann-Christin Raschdorf

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were “new facts” for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

    The 爆料网AT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the 爆料网AT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the 爆料网AT Judgment where the 爆料网AT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

    Finally, the...

    2024-爆料网AT-1410, AAH

    The 爆料网AT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the 爆料网AT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the 爆料网AT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

    However, the 爆料网AT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

    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-1404 , Alan George Blythe

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

    The 爆料网AT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The 爆料网AT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The 爆料网AT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had made an error of fact...

    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-1401, Mo?se Alain Nkoyock (Fils)

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

    In particular, the 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General’s witnesses. The 爆料网DT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation’s findings. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

    2023-爆料网AT-1403, Francis N. Fultang

    The 爆料网AT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the 爆料网DT was not a procedural error.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The 爆料网AT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

    2023-爆料网AT-1391, AAP

    The 爆料网AT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly dismissed AAP’s...

    2023-爆料网AT-1382, Flamur Kazazi

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant’s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...