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 201 - 210 of 671
    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-649, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-650, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-647, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-648, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-618, Subramanian et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-621, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-614, Roberts

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-796, Porter

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-772, Kadri

    On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-740, Auda

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law...