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 571 - 580 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/001, Fayache

    The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF benefits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities ¡°where a special agreement...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/031, Chhikara

    The Applicant requests revision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/080, Timothy

    The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/090, Peglan

    The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/059.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/083, Koumoin

    The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/105 in which...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/061, Mbok

    The Tribunal held that MONUSCO¡¯s 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum unambiguously informed the Applicant of the mission¡¯s decision to end his appointment, which at this point was a continuing appointment, by separating him from service on 24 October 2014. The Tribunal held that the 17 October 2014 inter-office memorandum was an administrative decision because it had a direct and adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual status and had direct legal consequences for him. The Tribunal concluded that the FPD/DFS response of 31 October 2016 was a reiteration of the 17 October 2014 decision...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/063, Nchimbi

    Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, ¡°the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case¡± (see Sanwidi 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-680, para. 13): ¡°¡­ Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/064, Coker

    Noting that the Applicant had conceded that his application was filed after the time limit set out in art. 8.1(d)(i)(b), the Tribunal concluded that the application was not receivable rationae temporis because the Applicant failed to comply with the 90-day filing deadline set out in art. 8.1(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal then deliberated on the Applicant¡¯s assertion that his application is receivable because the interpretation of art. 8.1(d)(i)(b) is unfair to staff members as it favours an administration that has failed to address management evaluation requests in violation of staff...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/042, Nchimbi

    Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡± (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).