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 211 - 220 of 671
    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, Michaud

    As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-762, Lemmonier

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-877, Atome

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-826, Ocokoru

    The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604 (Ocokoru). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in judgment 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-833, Koumoin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-819, Mbaigolmem

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-820, Newland

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-823, Ngoga

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-816, Harris

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-956, Ladu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to fully assess...