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 811 - 820 of 1006
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/167, Simmons

    The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent¡¯s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/125, Appleton

    The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (¡°OIOS¡±) (¡°the Post¡±) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (¡°SRG¡±) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/057, Osman

    Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Definition of harassment: Disagreements on work performance and other work-related issues are per se not excluded from the definition of harassment, and thus from the scope of ST/SGB/2008/5. Requirements to initiate an investigation and standard in appraising them: Section 5.14 of ST/SGB/2008/5 provides for two general criteria for the purpose of launching a fact-finding investigation: (1) that the formal...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/052, Wamalala

    Staff Rule 11.2(b) provides that a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by theSecretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure taken pursuant to staff rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process is not required to request a management evaluation. Staff rule 11.2(b) exempts the necessity of a management evaluation in two sets of cases, namely, in cases regarding advice obtained by the Administration from...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/026, Balogun

    The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/061, Ngokeng

    Administrative decisions: What an administrative decision is or is not depends on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision has been made and the consequences of the decision, which dispels any notion that administrative decisions can be placed in any kind of legal strait jacket. Performance evaluation: Notwithstanding the bar to rebutting successful performance ratings in section 15.1 of ST/AI/2010/5, when a contested administrative decision is alleged to be in violation of the legal issuances of the Organization, it is actionable before the Tribunal in so far...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/179, Staedtler

    With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/181, Laurenti

    Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.