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 561 - 570 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/019, Monarawila

    After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/021, Nwuke

    Receivability ¨CThe Applicant¡¯s patience in waiting for the Secretary-General to decide on when to grant him appropriate remedies cannot be used against him. It is not in contention that as soon as he was informed that the Secretary-General had decided that the appropriate remedies he was promised meant no remedies at all, the Applicant approached the Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s claims in regard to the other administrative decisions of tampering with a published vacancy announcement and the membership of the former incumbent of the position on the interview panel which were affirmed in management...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/015, Ruger

    Strict enforcement of time limits: time limits for formal contestation of a decision are to be enforced strictly. Exceptional cases (in relation to the waiver of time limits): according to art. 8.3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period ¡°only in exceptional cases¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has repeatedly found that only circumstances beyond the applicant¡¯s control that prevented him or her from exercising the right of appeal in a timely manner may be considered exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the statutory time limits.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/010, Nielsen

    Administrative decision: Advice from OAIS about where to submit a complaint that does not fall within the scope of its authority does not produce any direct legal consequences to the legal order and, therefore, does not constitute an administrative decision.In the absence of a specific time limit in the applicable rules and regulations for finalizing PAD rebuttals, a former staff member has no right to compel the Administration to investigate misconduct for a delay in the completion of a PAD rebuttal process; therefore, the absence of a response to such request does not constitute an implied...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/011, Reid

    he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/002, Cordoba Ruiz

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/073, Loeber

    Receivability The application registered under Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2015/182, insofar as it is directed against the decision to discontinue the post encumbered by the Applicant, is not receivable ratione materiae. In his application registered under Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/GVA/2016/039, the Applicant contests his separation from service effective 2 March 2016 and the non-renewal of his appointment, as a result of the abolition of his post. This is an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring and the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post. Merits Procedural regularity The noncompliance with a...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/011, Afeworki

    The Applicant was informed of the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew her appointment on 13 May 2015 thus the time to challenge this decision started to run from this date. The Applicant requested management evaluation on 28 August 2015.; A later notice to the Applicant on 30 June 2015 merely affirmed that the earlier decision remained in force.; The application was late in light of staff rule 11.2(c), as it was filed past the sixty-day time limit, and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/024, Porter

    The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and article 30 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/038, Ho

    Since the receivability of an application is a question of law, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make use of art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, and to decide on the application by way of summary judgment, without transmitting it to the Respondent. Upon taking up her functions as a Programme Management Officer at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCCC on 8 November 2012, the Applicant knew about her step in grade, as per her offer of appointment of 24 September 2012. Since the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation against the determination of her step upon recruitment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCCC four years...