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 151 - 160 of 671
    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-275, Cooke

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-267, Achkar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-265, Ljungdell

    Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-263, Larkin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/179. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-253, Gehr

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-258, Kananura

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-257, Baron

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-256, Benchebbak

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-243, Hersh

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-235, Wilson

    To the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the withdrawal request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...