Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 18

  • 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 11 - 17 of 17
    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.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-982, Asghar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1079, Reilly

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/123, Tadonki

    Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/164, Applicant

    Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant¡¯s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged ¡°sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person¡±, the Tribunal grants the Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...