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 1421 - 1430 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/055, De La Varga Fito

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/056, Landgraf

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner¡¯s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members¡¯ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/045, King

    The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/046, Vukasovic

    Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has requested management evaluation, where required. Failure to file a request for management evaluation prior to filing the application makes the latter irreceivable, ratione materiae.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/049, Tsoneva

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the contested decision was unlawful on the grounds that 1) the Organization committed several procedural errors in the implementation of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of International Professional Staff Members (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR/HCP/2014/2) (¡°Promotions Policy¡±), some of which resulted in a failure to take into account relevant information or to take into account irrelevant considerations; and 2) the Organization failed to minimally show that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion received fair and full consideration. Standard of review: In the context of a...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/050, Boskett

    Finding that the Applicant had been notified about the respective administrative decisions on 12 August 2014, and not in September 2014 as argued by the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, was not submitted timely. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case and that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Management evaluation: the requirement of timely filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/039, Wendlinger

    Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation, when required. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation makes the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/040, Kisia

    As results from the evidence and from the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB¡¯s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller¡¯s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant¡¯s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB to deny the claim on 23...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/041, Krioutchkov

    Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selection criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/042, Krioutchkov

    Appealable decision: The modalities of a written test in the context of a competitive selection cannot be contested as such as they do not constitute an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. However, the final non-selection can be challenged on the grounds that the selections criteria or the assessment conditions were improper.Written test: The administration of a written test is a lawful means of assessing the technical skills of candidates in a selection process. The methodology for such a test must not necessarily replicate the internal...