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 11 - 20 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/064, Iacovino

    Receivability

    After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the challenge to the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post and terminate his continuing appointment was not receivable. It held that the only matter before it was the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s employment to cover his sick leave, but instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while he was on certified sick leave.

    Merits

    First, the Tribunal assessed whether the Applicant was on certified sick leave at the time of his separation on 31 December 2023.

    Although sick leave was not formally recorded...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1469-Corr.1, Parmosivea Soobrayan

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

    Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1615, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

    The...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1606, Anna Stepanova

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

    Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her claim was...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1590, ABE

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT case concerning ABE. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it clear that the issues before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the case on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

    The...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1582, Olexandr Maruschak

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety, including the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding on the merits.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1503-Corr.1, Amjad Issa

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1602, Hatim Mahmoud Sobier

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1599, Faten Hatem Al Dawoud

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

    On the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1597, Janet Efrati

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

    As to the second application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...