Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Rule 111.2(a)

  • Appendix B
  • Chapter IV
  • Chapter IX
  • Chapter VII
  • Chapter X
  • Chapter XI
  • Rule 1.2(h)
  • Rule 10.2
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
  • Rule 10.3(a)
  • Rule 10.4(c)
  • Rule 10.4b
  • Rule 101.1
  • Rule 101.2(2)
  • Rule 101.2(a)
  • Rule 101.2(b)
  • Rule 101.2(c)
  • Rule 101.2(d)
  • Rule 101.2(g)
  • Rule 101.2(h)
  • Rule 101.4(a)
  • Rule 103.13
  • Rule 103.20
  • Rule 103.21(a)
  • Rule 103.24
  • Rule 103.24(a)
  • Rule 103.7(d)(ii)
  • Rule 103.9
  • Rule 103.9(a)
  • Rule 104.1
  • Rule 104.10
  • Rule 104.10(a)
  • Rule 104.12
  • Rule 104.12(a)
  • Rule 104.12(b)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
  • Rule 104.13
  • Rule 104.13(a)
  • Rule 104.13(c)
  • Rule 104.14
  • Rule 104.14(a)(i)
  • Rule 104.14(h)(i)
  • Rule 104.15
  • Rule 104.15(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.3
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 104.4(e)
  • Rule 104.6
  • Rule 104.6(b)
  • Rule 104.7
  • Rule 104.7(a)
  • Rule 104.8
  • Rule 105
  • Rule 105.1(b)
  • Rule 105.1(b)(iii)
  • Rule 105.1(c)
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 105.2(a)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(iii)b
  • Rule 105.3
  • Rule 105.3(d)
  • Rule 105.3(d)(iii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(a)
  • Rule 106.2(c)
  • Rule 106.2(g)
  • Rule 106.6
  • Rule 107
  • Rule 107.1
  • Rule 107.21
  • Rule 107.21(h)
  • Rule 107.27
  • Rule 107.28
  • Rule 107.28(c)
  • Rule 107.4(b)
  • Rule 107.6
  • Rule 108.1
  • Rule 108.2
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.1(b)
  • Rule 109.1(c)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(i)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(ii)(a)
  • Rule 109.15
  • Rule 109.3
  • Rule 109.5(h)
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(a)
  • Rule 109.8
  • Rule 11.2
  • Rule 11.2(c)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.2(a)
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 110.3(a)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(iv)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(viii)
  • Rule 110.3(b)
  • Rule 110.3(b)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(vii)
  • Rule 110.4
  • Rule 110.4(a)
  • Rule 110.4(c)
  • Rule 110.7
  • Rule 110.7(b)
  • Rule 111
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(a)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(f)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(c)
  • Rule 111.2(c)(iii)
  • Rule 111.2(e)
  • Rule 111.2(f)
  • Rule 111.2(p)
  • Rule 111.2(q)
  • Rule 111.4(b)
  • Rule 112.2
  • Rule 112.2(a)
  • Rule 112.2(b)
  • Rule 112.2(f)
  • Rule 112.3
  • Rule 112.7
  • Rule 200.2(b)
  • Rule 204.3
  • Rule 204.3(d)
  • Rule 205.3(a)(iii)
  • Rule 208.5(a)
  • Rule 209.2(a)
  • Rule 209.2(c)
  • Rule 209.5
  • Rule 3
  • Rule 3.13(a)(iii)
  • Rule 3.17(c)(ii)
  • Rule 301.1
  • Rule 301.3
  • Rule 301.3(d)
  • Rule 301.3(q)(ii)
  • Rule 301.4
  • Rule 304.1
  • Rule 304.3
  • Rule 304.4
  • Rule 304.4(a)
  • Rule 304.4(b)
  • Rule 304(a)
  • Rule 309.2
  • Rule 309.3
  • Rule 309.4
  • Rule 309.5(a)
  • Rule 309.5(b)
  • Rule 310.1
  • Rule 310.1(e)(ii)
  • Rule 310.1(e)(iv)
  • Rule 311.1
  • Rule 312.6
  • Rule 4.17
  • Rule 4.4(b)
  • Rule 5.3
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 61
    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-079, Sethia

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052), which was disproved by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-067, Diagne et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-180, Bernadel

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-170, Kapsou

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

    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-105, Fuentes

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-271, Cremades

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-389, Reid

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-335, Christensen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning her entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-329, Perez-Soto

    Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...