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 191 - 200 of 671
    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-557, Kazazi

    As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552, Gallo

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could discern no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-527, Dhanjee

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant¡¯s candidature full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-520, Eng

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-705, De Aguirre

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-694, Monarawila

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-686, He

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-666, Han

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure gives Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-609, Siri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-651, Choi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...