Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 28

  • Annex I
  • Annex IV
  • Annex ll
  • Article 1
  • Article 1(l)
  • Article 1(q)
  • Article 1(v)
  • Article 10
  • Article 13
  • Article 2
  • Article 22
  • Article 22(b)
  • Article 22(c)
  • Article 24
  • Article 24(a)
  • Article 25
  • Article 25(b)(i)
  • Article 27
  • Article 28
  • Article 28(d)
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(e)
  • Article 30
  • Article 30(b)
  • Article 31
  • Article 31 (b) (ii)
  • Article 31(a)
  • Article 31(b)(i)
  • Article 32
  • Article 32(a)
  • Article 32(b)
  • Article 33
  • Article 33(a)
  • Article 34
  • Article 35
  • Article 35(b)(i)
  • Article 35ter
  • Article 38
  • Article 4(b)
  • Article 4(c)
  • Article 40
  • Article 44
  • Article 45
  • Article 48
  • Article 48(a)
  • Article 49(b)
  • Article 50
  • Article 50(b)
  • Article 53
  • Article 54
  • Article 6
  • Article 6(a)
  • Former Regulation 31
  • Former Regulation 35
  • Regulation 1(n)
  • Regulation 30(a)
  • Section H.5
  • Section K
  • Section K.1
  • Section K.5
  • Section K.8(a)
  • Section K.8(b)
    • Showing 1 - 3 of 3
    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1389, Maryam H. Wathanafa

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

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1323, Elena Korotaeva

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034, Muthuswami et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...