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 1281 - 1290 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/108, Babiker

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within the prescribed time period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/110, Nguyen-Kropp

    The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent¡¯s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-457 and Nartey 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/100, Elhabil

    Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/103, Mafessanti

    The Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/104, Omwanda

    Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/105, Chollet

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 19 June 2013, but submitted his request for management evaluation only on 15 January 2014, or nearly five months after the expiration of the applicable 60-day period for the filing of management evaluation requests. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by not submitting a timely request for management evaluation, the Applicant failed to meet one of the mandatory and cumulative receivability conditions of art. 8.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/106, Kucherov

    SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/099, Awe

    The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/093, Kashala

    The Tribunal found that the facts on which the sanction was based had not been established and the facts that were established did not legally amount to misconduct. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore a violation of his rights. Witness statements: The Tribunal concluded that the witness statements without averments of truthfulness could not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant solicited and obtained money from the five complainants in return for their recruitment as casual daily...