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 131 - 140 of 671
    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-055, Hijaz

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ishak

    In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-053, Xu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to be heard afresh.

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Nasr Ishak

    In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-049, Planas

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-043, Mezoui

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-032, Calvani

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-067, Diagne et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-011, Kasmani

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant¡¯s...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-010, Tadonki

    The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute.