Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 16

  • 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 14
    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1494, Zafarkhon Sheralov

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1494-Corr.1, Zafarkhon Sheralov

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1561, HUDA HANNINA

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1456, Surendra Bista

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

    Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1418, Paul Njoroge Ng'ang'a

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1403, Francis N. Fultang

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1366, AAN

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-207, Hallal

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-686, He

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...