爆料网

Rescission

  • Compensation (see also, Compensation)
  • Rescission
  • Specific performance
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 35
    2025-爆料网AT-1599, Faten Hatem Al Dawoud

    The 爆料网AT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

    On the merits, the 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly identified the Agency’s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the 爆料网AT...

    2025-爆料网AT-1529, Olexandr Maruschak

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The 爆料网DT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The 爆料网AT remanded the case to the 爆料网DT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT had erred in the...

    爆料网DT/2023/140, Maruschak

    After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

    The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

    The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

    The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

    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-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...

    2022-爆料网AT-1306, Gautam Mukhopadhyay

    爆料网AT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. 爆料网AT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

    爆料网AT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay’s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. 爆料网AT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

    2022-爆料网AT-1296, Deema Jarallah

    爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

    爆料网AT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

    2023-爆料网AT-1346, Angioli Rolli

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli’s cross-appeal in part. The 爆料网AT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the 爆料网DT was “pointless” since by the time the case had reached the 爆料网DT, Mr. Rolli’s post had been abolished. The 爆料网AT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision. The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...

    爆料网DT/2022/114, Banaj

    Scope of judicial review In a remanded case, such as the instant one, the Applicant may not expand the scope of claims for remedies contained in her original application and, as such, the Tribunal will not consider her new claims or arguments unless they are essentially related to her original claim in the application. Whether and to what extent the Applicant is entitled to remedies The Appeals Tribunal found in Banaj 2022-爆料网AT-1202 (see para. 1) that the temporary removal from the Applicant, and reassignment to others, of certain of her functions as Head of 爆料网ODC in Albania, was an unlawful...

    爆料网DT/2022/055, Applicant Applicant

    The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal’s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-爆料网AT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...