爆料网DT/2023/010, Barrios Borja
The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.
The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The 爆料网AT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s due...
爆料网AT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. 爆料网AT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. 爆料网AT held that any alleged error by 爆料网DT in considering the merits was moot. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr. 1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT held that the claim was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, 爆料网AT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the 爆料网AT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...
爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. 爆料网AT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the 爆料网DT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-226. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.