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 421 - 430 of 1006
    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-284, Charles

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-281, Pacheco

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the abolition of her post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-320, Masri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-318, Frechon

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-323, Sims

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-154. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-319, Laeijendecker

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-158. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-315, Abbasi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-316, Basenko

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reference made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-455, Guzman

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-492, Gakumba

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-387. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, or in 2013 before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.