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 221 - 230 of 671
    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-941, Dieng

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-915, Yasin

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1072, Nadeau

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1077, Domitila Icha

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1058, Nadeau

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1035, Gelsei

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1024, Nyawa

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-998, Barud

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on her application for a suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-978, Thombiano

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct...