爆料网

Temporary appointment

  • Appointment of Limited Duration
  • Continuing appointment
  • Fixed-term appointment
  • Permanent appointment
  • Probationary appointment
  • Temporary appointment
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 36
    2017-爆料网AT-770, Humackic

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. 爆料网AT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed no error of law, fact, or...

    2018-爆料网AT-891, Vattapally

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the 爆料网DT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant’s application for mobility allowance.

    2019-爆料网AT-966, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT contradicted 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

    2020-爆料网AT-981, Nouinou

    As a first preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. 爆料网AT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant’s own motions and 爆料网AT would not have asked her to disclose such information. 爆料网AT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent’s observations on a motion. 爆料网AT held that its RoP did...

    2021-爆料网AT-1099, Antonio Ponce-Gonzalez

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because 爆料网DT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also erred in fact when it found that certain 爆料网AT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited 爆料网AT precedents.

    爆料网DT/2009/019, Balestrieri

    爆料网DT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. 爆料网DT held that it could not be stated that the decision of nonrenewal was an improper exercise of discretion. 爆料网DT held that the evidence showed that the Applicant’s appointment was not renewed because there was no further funding available. 爆料网DT held that there was no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention that the decision to extend her contract in January 2008 using Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme funds, while she was working on other projects, was done in order to prepare the ground...

    爆料网DT/2010/042, Gomez

    Break in service: The Tribunal has not found a policy on mandatory breaks in service and no document has been produced recording it. The respondent has failed to demonstrate a consistent application of the practice of enforced separation between temporary contracts. Further, there was a deliberate delay in progressing the appointment of the applicant which was to her detriment. Compensation: The applicant is to be placed in the position as if there had been no such break in service in May 2008. The manner in which the applicant was treated, aggravated by the exercise of an abuse of power...

    爆料网DT/2010/144, Perosa

    It is not the function of the Tribunal to review the prior JAB report, but to consider whether the respondent acted properly and with due regard to the applicant’s due process rights in deciding to appoint the applicant at the G-3 level. It is incumbent upon any party making serious allegations to produce supporting evidence. It was for the applicant, as a freely contracting person, to decide whether or not to accept the appointment and she did so on the basis of the clear oral and written conditions governing her appointment.Outcome: Application dismissed in its entirety.