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 101 - 110 of 671
    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1361, AAO

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was problematic because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

    Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/092, Ortega Andres

    In the present case, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing it, the Applicant was not a staff member, and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS.

    Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC are two different entities of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ system. While the Applicant was a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, he had no employment relationship with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the contested position with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵGSC.
    The Applicant acknowledged that ¡°there...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/084, MOULANA

    As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant¡¯s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

    The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

    The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/032, Lawani

    The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

    To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

    Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/080, Mushumba

    Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

    In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

    While there are...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/027, Dawadi

    A a holder of an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

    Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

    As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.