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 11 - 20 of 671
    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1495, ABA

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1494-Corr.1, 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, 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-1595, Polinikis Sophocleous

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

    The...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1548, Ghazal Ozairi

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1562, Rasha Aladdin Al Osta

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1552, Catalin Gicu Tomeci

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

    020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant¡¯s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
    002 (NBI/2024), Francis Fultang
    • Appealed
    1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...
    007 (NBI/2024), Jean-Joseph Henry
    • Appealed
    1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...