Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 13

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 59
    020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant¡¯s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
    007 (NBI/2024), Jean-Joseph Henry
    • Appealed
    1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...
    002 (GVA/2024), Torres Sibille
    • Appealed
    The Applicant argued that the contested decision was prima facie unlawful on two grounds: The justification for abolishing her post was false and misleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had created a legal expectation of contract renewal. Regarding the first claim, the Tribunal held that a staff member¡¯s disagreement with the rationale behind post abolition does not render the decision unlawful. Additionally, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA officials could have been more transparent when the Applicant sought clarification, their lack of candor¡ªthough unfortunate¡ªdid not amount to unlawfulness in the decision not to renew her...
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/041, Dhindsa

    The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

    The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160, Villamoran

    The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP have elapsed, and where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-256, Benchebbak

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-609, Siri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-979, Igunda

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/017, Kasmani

    The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...