Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 9

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 13
    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1231, Sergio Arvizu Trevino

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-471, Landgraf

    The Appellant requested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-535, Rangel

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-531, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-634, Jaber et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-839, Hamdan

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-975, Reilly

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that it does...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-942, El Shaer

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1077, Domitila Icha

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1068, Porras

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as allegations of improper motive, bias, or prejudice as reasons for the unlawfulness of the non-renewal were not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for its consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should not consider them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional circumstances that were required to allow additional pleadings to be considered, were not present. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in situations of a staff member being declared persona non grata by a host country, it was the duty of...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1186, Shareef Muzyed

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could not...