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 281 - 290 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/028, Shakir

    In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General¡¯s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/019, Samardzic et al

    Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are well known and widespread instruments in administrative law, both in national and in international jurisdictions. Compared to the time limits in some national and international systems, the time limits in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ justice system remain within a reasonable frame. As for exceptions, ¡°exceptional cases¡± arise from exceptional personal circumstances. Relevant factors for an Applicant¡¯s failure to act within the prescribed time limits are confined to his individual capacities. Factors like the prospects of success on the merits and the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/025, Kita

    Under the given circumstances, the application for an extension of time could not be considered as an application on the merits. No exceptional circumstances for an extension of time could be found. Lack of legal counsel normally does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Since the Applicant had learned one month before the end of the time limit that OSLA would not take her case, it was appropriate and reasonable for the Applicant to submit an application by herself within the time limits.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/214, Kamunyi

    i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/213, Jennings

    The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/206, Leboeuf et al.

    The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the ¡°scheduled workday¡± and actual work (¡°hours of work¡±) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that DGACM¡¯s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM¡¯s policy and...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/205, Adorna

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reiterated that, as it had held in Adorna Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/012, the Applicant¡¯s claims concerning the propriety of the letter of reprimand were not receivable and this case was limited to the following contested decisions: (i) the refusal to allow the Applicant access to the investigation report; (ii) the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s legal expenses; and (iii) the refusal to issue internal and public announcements acknowledging his exoneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s request for the investigation report was reasonable and that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing required...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/156, Shkurtaj

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...