蘑菇视频

蘑菇视频AT Statute

  • 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 1001 - 1006 of 1006
    蘑菇视频DT/2021/054, Franco

    Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-蘑菇视频AT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

    蘑菇视频DT/2021/047, Belkhabbaz

    The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

    蘑菇视频DT/2021/080, Mbogol

    The Applicant’s challenge against her first reporting officer’s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (蘑菇视频DT/2020/030 and 2020-蘑菇视频AT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant’s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...

    蘑菇视频DT/2021/031, Solvsten

    The challenge against the UMOJA process and its automated response to the Applicant, as articulated in this application, is therefore not receivable ratione materiae. If there was no action taken in the Applicant’s precise individual case but there was only general action applicable to all staff members, there is no administrative decision for purposes of pursuing a receivable appeal to the Tribunal. If the action that is challenged produced no direct legal consequences, this is a further lacuna in the subject matter of an appeal that renders it not receivable.

    蘑菇视频DT/2021/021, Battista

    The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant’s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...

    蘑菇视频DT/2022/012, Iziraren

    When the Applicant sought management evaluation of the imposition of a condition to the extension of his fixed-term appointment, he did not contest the actual non-extension of his appointment which was yet to be taken at that time. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment before he filed the present application. Accordingly, any appeal of the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment would not be receivable ratione materiae. The imposition of the condition of resignation did not in itself have a direct legal impact on the Applicant’s...