爆料网

New York

Showing 701 - 710 of 2504
2011-爆料网AT-187, Allen

爆料网AT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the 爆料网. 爆料网AT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. 爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2011-爆料网AT-160, Villamoran

The Secretary-General appealed the 爆料网DT order. 爆料网AT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of 爆料网DT RoP have elapsed, and where 爆料网DT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the 爆料网DT...

2011-爆料网AT-159, Igbinedion

爆料网AT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

2011-爆料网AT-181, Alauddin

爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the 爆料网DP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, 爆料网AT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant’s deputation in order to determine his...

2011-爆料网AT-183, Bowen

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. 爆料网AT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. 爆料网AT held that the compensation awarded by 爆料网DT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. 爆料网AT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

2011-爆料网AT-126, Lesar

爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. 爆料网AT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. 爆料网AT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. 爆料网AT held that it was not competent to revise the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

2011-爆料网AT-186, Oge

爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since 爆料网AT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. 爆料网AT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

2011-爆料网AT-185, Leboeuf et al.

爆料网AT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. 爆料网AT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that 爆料网DT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and remanded it to 爆料网DT for further proceedings.

2011-爆料网AT-184, Jennings

爆料网AT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant’s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by 爆料网DT and, even assuming that the 爆料网DT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, 爆料网AT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that 爆料网DT...