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 391 - 400 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/040, Likuyani

    A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/041, Balakrishnan

    Legal representation: An applicant may be represented by counsel before the Tribunal provided the requirements of art. 8.2(c) and art. 12 of the Rules of Procedure are met; in particular, the applicant must formally authorize counsel to represent him/her and adequate information must be provided to the Tribunal on the good standing of counsel. Preparatory decisions: According to well-settled case law of the Dispute Tribunal, preparatory decisions are not subject to appeal. They may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/025, Ba

    The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary¡¯s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/029, Diop

    On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/003, Kiarie-Nyoike

    In this case, the Applicant filed an application for revision of the judgment out of time. A decisive or material fact is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. That fact must be of significant weight such that its application to the case should lead to a revision of the judgment.The Applicant was investigated and later summarily dismissed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR on allegations of corruption in refugee processing in the Nairobi office of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. The Applicant was also arrested by the Kenyan Police and charged in a Kenyan Court with various criminal offences, however, the Applicant was...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/005, Balinge

    The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/036, Arigi-Oikelomen

    Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant¡¯s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent¡¯s case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant¡¯s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant¡¯s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...