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 531 - 540 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/202, Pandey, Oberoi

    The Tribunal found that the applications were irreceivable because no timely management evaluation request had been filed and, even assuming the impugned decisions were of such type that no management evaluation was required, the applications were not filed within the statutory time limits to come before the Tribunal. Receivability: Requesting management evaluation within 60 days of the notification of the impugned decision is mandatory for any administrative decision with the exception of two specific categories of decisions: those taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies and...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/184, Michaud

    The Applicant, a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Investigations Specialist at the P-4 level, contested three decisions. The appeal against two decisions was found not to be receivable ratione materiae: a preliminary decision and failure to request management evaluation. The third decision concerned the imposition of a written reprimand as an administrative measure against Applicant. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s appeal regarding the third decision on the merits.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/121, Rehman

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/122, Nielsen

    The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/123, Tadonki

    Although the proceedings of the rebuttal panel had been completed and notified to the Applicant in July 2011, he did not move the Tribunal to waive the deadlines pursuant to art. 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation but he did not do so.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/118, Reid

    The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/116, Nadeau

    The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU¡¯s writing in the MEU¡¯s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant¡¯s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/105, Lackner

    The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.