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 311 - 320 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/200, Di Giacomo

    The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/168, by which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/202, Bangoura

    Execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT judgments: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/194, Achkar

    From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA before the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/191, Benchebbak

    On 19 October 2011, the Tribunal issued Order No. 129 (NBI/2011) suspending the implementation of the contested decision until 10 November 2011 allowing the Tribunal to allow the filing of the Respondent¡¯s Reply, the hearing held on 3 November 2011 and the determination of the matter. The Applicant was communicated the response from MEU on 27 October 2011 as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s response. The Applicant filed his case on the merits, registered in the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s records as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2011/070 and simultaneously filed under article 14 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/190, Osmanli

    The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his ¡°great interest¡± in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/187, Applicant

    Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/174, Baron

    The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years¡¯ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization¡¯s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/121, Reid

    The contested decision was not, in itself, unfavourable to the Applicant since it did not prevent her from applying for the position again. The only decision which the Applicant would have had a legitimate interest in contesting, was the decision not to appoint her to the position she encumbered after its reclasification as Senior Career Management Assistant at the G-5 level. However, the Applicant did not contest this decision. The application was not receivable, since the Applicant did not have any legitimate interest in requesting the suspension of the decision to readvertise the position...