爆料网

Procedure (first instance and 爆料网AT)

  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
    • Showing 121 - 130 of 262
    2023-爆料网AT-1365, Polycarp Ambe-Niba

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

    The 爆料网AT found that the facts suggest that the participant’s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant’s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

    The...

    2023-爆料网AT-1350, Ismail Said Abu Hatab

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

    With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

    2023-爆料网AT-1349, Said Ali Tamalawi

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

    The 爆料网AT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the 爆料网RWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2022/022.

    2023-爆料网AT-1355, Ramesh Balakrishnan Menon

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

    The 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The 爆料网AT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1366, AAN

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

    The 爆料网AT found that because of a combination of the staff member’s failure to recall the events in question and of the 爆料网DT’s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the 爆料网DT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that the 爆料网DT had correctly determined the staff member’s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The 爆料网AT held that the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1371, Enrico Muratore Aprosio

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

    The 爆料网AT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the 爆料网DT but which it did not accept.

    The 爆料网AT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

    2022-爆料网AT-1212, Lillian Ular

    爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, 爆料网AT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

    However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint, 爆料网AT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the 爆料网DT made no ruling on this...

    2023-爆料网AT-1361, AAO

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was problematic because the 爆料网DT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The 爆料网AT observed that the 爆料网DT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the 爆料网DT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2022-爆料网AT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

    2022-爆料网AT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

    Mr. Hassan appealed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...