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 671 - 680 of 1006
    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-923, Baramky

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-925, Kortes

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ms Kortes¡¯ cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration¡¯s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-926, Ross 2021-03-18

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-914, Oglesby

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-915, Yasin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-917, Farzin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-920, Krioutchkov

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-905, Ghusoub

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-907, Korduru

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
    Accountability referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...