Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)¨C(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 1867
    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1641, ABN

    Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1640, Fekadu Kebede, Secretary-General of the United Nations

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1618, Varun Singh Phogat

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

    The...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1619, ABI

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1622, Gwendolyn Linnea Roeske

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1634, Themba Ralph Phakathi

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1630, Saleh Hassane

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

    Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1645, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

    Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

    2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1623, Dorah Likukela

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

    Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/054, Kebede

    The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

    Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...