Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 18.1

  • 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 - 20 of 30
    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-134, Larkin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-123, Messinger

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors of...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-265, Ljungdell

    Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-263, Larkin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/179. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-253, Gehr

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-281, Pacheco

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the abolition of her post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-582, Kacan

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was unable to find any such evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

    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.

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-651, Choi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-762, Lemmonier

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...