Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 7.1

  • 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 1 - 10 of 15
    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

    The...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1454, Ying Yu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1466, Fouad Moustafa El-Anani

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-941, Dieng

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/070, Gallo

    The Applicant filed his request for management evaluation on 30 September 2013 and received a response from the management evaluation unit on 21 February 2014. His appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 22 May 2014. The question for decision by the Tribunal regarding the timely filing of the claim is not whether the MEU was dilatory in its response but whether the Applicant complied with the necessary deadlines under the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the applicable time limits for the filing of the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/054, Diatta

    Selection processes and job openingsThe Tribunal appreciates that the selection process for a post starts with the creation of a job opening (sec. 3.1 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual) and ends when the Head of the Office/Department makes the selection decision (sec. 14.3.7 of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual). A new job opening represents the beginning of a new selection process and cannot be created and or viewed as a continuation of a previous selection process that has been initiated by the publication of the first job opening for the same post. Composition of assessment panelThe Tribunal notes...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/021, Nwuke

    Receivability ¨CThe Applicant¡¯s patience in waiting for the Secretary-General to decide on when to grant him appropriate remedies cannot be used against him. It is not in contention that as soon as he was informed that the Secretary-General had decided that the appropriate remedies he was promised meant no remedies at all, the Applicant approached the Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s claims in regard to the other administrative decisions of tampering with a published vacancy announcement and the membership of the former incumbent of the position on the interview panel which were affirmed in management...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/080, Timothy

    The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...