Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute

  • 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 401 - 410 of 1006
    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359, Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-344, Pio

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent¡¯s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant¡¯s request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matters could be raised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Respondent¡¯s arguments that the Appellant¡¯s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-343, Larghi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that by refusing to review the staff member¡¯s request, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 26 of the PAS, whose very purpose ¡°is to address the issue of whether the application of official Consumer Price Index (CPI) data results in ¡®aberrant results¡¯ or the situation where no up-to-date CPI data is available¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the decision of the Standing Committee of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB to reject the staff member¡¯s request that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF discontinue the local track in application of paragraph 26 of the PAS, and remanded the...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-358, Longone

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-332, McCluskey

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-338, Dzuverovic

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the approach of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not merit the remedy...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-314, Mpacko

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision and did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-327, Tiwathia

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.