Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 671
    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1641, ABN

    Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1617, ABF

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1619, ABI

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1630, Saleh Hassane

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

    Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1645, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

    Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1502-Corr.1, AAZ

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1494, Zafarkhon Sheralov

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1469-Corr.1, Parmosivea Soobrayan

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

    Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

    The...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1502, AAZ

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...