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 61 - 70 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/047, Argyrou

    The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

    As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1460, Al Waleed Abdelrahman Abdrabou

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1456, Surendra Bista

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the former staff member¡¯s knowledge that he was in a prohibited family relationship with another staff member, Mr. S.R.B.

    Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the information provided by the former staff member was false, he could not have intended to mislead the Organization by providing or omitting it. On the contrary, the evidence established that when he made his relevant applications, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Mr. S.R.B. was employed by the United Nations. In...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1452, Ousmane Tamba Dia

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application and his management evaluation...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1449, Michael David Antoine

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the lawfulness of the...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1448, Ray Steven Millan

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1418, Paul Njoroge Ng'ang'a

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1419, Nicole Wynn

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/011, Bukhari

    Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis.

    In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

    To the extent that the Applicant received...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/008, Reid

    The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

    Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days¡¯ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.