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 1561 - 1570 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/098, Auda

    The application is not receivable. The Applicant, as a staff member at the relevant time period, had a right to be fully and fairly considered as part of the terms of his former employment. Since the Applicant decided not to apply for JO 41653 in the belief that the post in question would be abolished according to the budget proposal for OICT, the question is whether he is entitled to a review of the contested decision despite his decision not to apply for the job opening. It is not disputed that the budget proposal for OICT was not adopted at the time of the publication and closing of JO...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/079, Koduru

    The Tribunal concluded that the decision to separate the Applicant was discriminatory, constituted abuse of authority and was therefore unlawful because of the apparent bad faith on the part of the Applicant¡¯s supervisor in initiating and concluding a new recruitment contrary to the Civilian Staffing Review recommendation, and her unauthorized nationalization of the Applicant¡¯s post one year before the approved date. To ensure the Applicant¡¯s continuity of service when decisions are being made about her eligibility for a continuing appointment and after service health insurance, the Tribunal...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/082, Abbas

    The Tribunal had to determine whether a valid contract existed between the Applicant and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA, and, in the affirmative, whether the decision not to proceed with his on-boarding was illegal. The Tribunal considered that for the conditions of Gabaldon to apply, it is necessary that the offer of employment extended to a candidate be based on a selection decision made by the person disposing of the relevant delegated authority. Legal framework for delegation of authority to make the selection decision The Tribunal was of the view that at the time of the contested decision in accordance with the...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/087, Yasin

    The Applicant¡¯s actions were reasonable and in accordance with her obligation to carefully verify the cost of administrative services, procurement and logistical support, since all the costs were supported by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, in order to ensure that all the provisions of the OIOS Audit Manual were respected. There was no concrete negative result on the planned audit resulting from the annulment of the first MOP and that the Applicant¡¯s actions, which she was taking in her capacity as CMS in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI, consisting in a careful review of the alternative means to a face-to-face visit which could have resulted...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/067, Angelova et al.

    Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not the function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The exercise of discretion in reliance on technical bodies might be subject to judicial review only indirectly, through impact that such advice had on individual decisions. Considered that the ICSC was not a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned decision from the management evaluation requirement, the impugned decision should have been submitted for management evaluation. Although staff rule 11.2 and art. 8 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute require only ¡°requesting¡±...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/069, Bozic

    The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/026. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/072, Andreeva et al.

    The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/024. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/073, Steinbach

    The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/075, Cardenas Fischer et al.

    The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/076, Abd Al-Shakour et al.

    The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.