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 31 - 40 of 671
    011 (NBI/2025), Cynthia Cline
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application. A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access. The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.
    002 (NBI/2025), KC
    • Appealed
    Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent¡¯s response to his request for production of evidence. The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant¡¯s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion. The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...
    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1522, Sanjaya Bahel

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1561, HUDA HANNINA

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1551, Leonid Dolgopolov

     

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1554, ABD

     

     

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

     

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1539, Desire Hatungimana

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

    It found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/013, Martin Akerman

    The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

     

    In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

    086 (NY/2024), Sinha

    The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.

    The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.