蘑菇视频

Article 11.1

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2026-蘑菇视频AT-1672, Costas Argyrou

    The 蘑菇视频AT noted that in its prior Judgment the 蘑菇视频AT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

    The 蘑菇视频AT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The 蘑菇视频AT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

    2025-蘑菇视频AT-1586, Amjad Issa

    The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa’s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the 蘑菇视频AT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all 蘑菇视频RWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

    The 蘑菇视频AT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with 蘑菇视频RWA’s directives to advise the Agency of his...

    2025-蘑菇视频AT-1544, Antonio Ponce Gonzalez

    The 蘑菇视频AT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

    The 蘑菇视频AT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the 蘑菇视频AT Statute, and the application was denied.