爆料网

Subject matter (ratione materiae)

  • Management Evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Temporel (ratione temporis)
    • Showing 121 - 130 of 513
    2011-爆料网AT-170, Kapsou

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). 爆料网AT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. 爆料网AT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

    2011-爆料网AT-153, Ahmed

    爆料网AT affirmed the decision of 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. 爆料网AT concurred with the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member’s fixed-term appointment...

    2011-爆料网AT-152, Ishak

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly held that the Appellant’s case was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT...

    2011-爆料网AT-130, Koda

    爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that OIOS operates under the “authority” of the Secretary-General but has “operational independence”. 爆料网AT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General’s administrative decisions. 爆料网AT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members’ terms or contract of employment, OIOS’ reports may be...

    2011-爆料网AT-120, Gabaldon

    爆料网AT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before 爆料网AT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration’s withdrawal of the offer of...

    2012-爆料网AT-279, Sanbar

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2012-爆料网AT-278, Balogun

    爆料网AT held that, when the Appellant contested before 爆料网AdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. 爆料网AT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant’s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. 爆料网AT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

    2012-爆料网AT-267, Achkar

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...