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 421 - 430 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/107, Al-Mulla

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/109, Saffir

    The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/100, Mohammed

    MEU¡¯s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT refused the Respondent¡¯s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/082, Garcia-Webster

    Following successful settlement discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing all of her allegations and claims. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, the dispute having been settled by way of a settlement agreement, the Applicant withdrew her case fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The case was closed without liberty to reinstate or appeal.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/075, Applicant

    Following the Tribunal¡¯s judgment on receivability (Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/149) and inter partes discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement or appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/071, Awad

    The Respondent submitted that the application was filed out of time as the Applicant had submitted it after 5 p.m. (closing hour of the New York Registry) on the last filing day. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide that applications are to be filed within 90 calendar days from the date of notification of the outcome of management evaluation, and, therefore, the applicant had until the expiration of the last calendar day of the filing period to file his application, regardless of the working hours of the Registry. Having done so, his application was receivable...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/060, Munuve

    The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim is receivable. Meaning of an ¡°agreement reached through mediation¡± - A plain reading of the full text of art. 8.2 requires that a mediated agreement must be reduced in to writing and signed by the parties as otherwise it would be inconceivable how the implementation of such an agreement would be enforced as provided for in the latter part of art. 8.2 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/062, Hersh

    Classification - There is no evidence that the procedure for a re-classification of the Broadcast Technology Officer (¡°BTO¡±) post encumbered by the Applicant in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS was ever undertaken. As already pointed out, the Chief of radio took it upon herself to re-write the competencies of the post to which in January 2010, the Applicant had been competitively recruited before she came on board as Chief of radio, perhaps in order to make the Applicant who was encumbering the post, less eligible.

    Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority...