Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 25

  • 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 - 5 of 5
    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1664, Jayne Kimani Nduta

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1645, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

    Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1370, AAC

    After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1361, AAO

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was problematic because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1210, Appellant

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, to whom the...