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 71 - 80 of 671
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/120, Reilly

    Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

    The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1406, Kamal Karki

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that given...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1405, Yonas Negasa

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/132, Naji

    The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is challenging an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or his contract of employment and is not challenging the legitimacy of General Assembly resolution 66/234. The application is accordingly receivable.

    The General Assembly resolution, Staff Rules, and the ICSC principles and guidelines are clear and unambiguous. These rules stipulate that GS staff wishing to apply for a professional post must first pass the G to P exam unless exceptional approval for a waiver is granted.

    Staff at level FS-5 and...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1403, Francis N. Fultang

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1395, Abdurrahman Turk

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1391, AAP

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1388, Yassir Ibrahim Ali Haroun

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/115, Hakimi

    The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

    Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1384, Humphreys Timothy Shumba

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...