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 541 - 550 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106, Auda

    The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/108, Rehman

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision, since the decision to close the case had no direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Administrative decision: While staff members have a duty to report possible misconduct, a decision by the Organization not to investigate the matter does not have direct legal consequences on the contractual rights of the staff member, unless the complaint made by the staff member was one of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/097, Khan

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant's claims concerning the two 2010 decision were time-barred under art. 8.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, contrary to his claims, the Applicant had received, in May 2010 and August 2010, management evaluation decisions in response to his requests regarding the refusal to grant special leave and his separation from service. Regarding the 2015 decision not to re-employ the Applicant, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having been separated from service in May 2010, and not having contested that separation within the prescribed time limits, the Applicant did not...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/090, Krioutchkov

    The Tribunal found that filling a vacancy by laterally transferring a staff member holding the same grade and within the department of the vacant post, without undergoing a full-fledged selection procedure under the staff selection system, does not per se violate the applicable legal framework. Lateral transfer under sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3: Sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3 explicitly provides for the possibility of transferring staff within their departments or offices to job openings at the same level without following the procedures laid down in the staff selection system. This provision does not...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/085, Hashim

    Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/086, Kazagic

    The Tribunal found that it was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had had sexual intercourse with two persons under the age of eighteen and that the sanction of dismissal, together with a fine, were proportionate to the established misconduct. This conclusion was independent from the outcome of the judicial proceedings before the national courts of Kosovo with respect to the violation(s) of the CCK. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine(1) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/061, Palaco Caballero

    Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.