爆料网

Specific performance

  • Compensation (see also, Compensation)
  • Rescission
  • Specific performance
    • Showing 1 - 7 of 7
    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...

    2022-爆料网AT-1245, DUPARC et al.

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.’s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s argument that 爆料网DT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General’s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. 爆料网AT observed that when 爆料网DT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel’s report, it did not draw any...

    2010-爆料网AT-020, Adwan

    In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, 爆料网AT preliminarily held that the 爆料网RWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; 爆料网AT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that it was within 爆料网RWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.

    2010-爆料网AT-025, Doleh

    爆料网AT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant’s termination, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA JAB’s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. 爆料网AT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. 爆料网AT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. 爆料网AT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

    2010-爆料网AT-002, Parker

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that 爆料网DT erred when it decided to give 爆料网HCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). 爆料网AT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

    2011-爆料网AT-143, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant’s formal complaint. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of 爆料网DT with regard to the Appellant’s request for an investigation. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the award by 爆料网DT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant’s separation from service was not the subject of...

    2018-爆料网AT-895, Belkhabbaz (formerly Oummih)

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s submissions were valid in most aspects. 爆料网AT held that the award of 21 months’ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz’s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months’ remuneration would be adequate compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant’s placement on sick leave with half pay. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by awarding...