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 321 - 330 of 1867
    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1241, Dua Fayez Al Smadi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1231, Sergio Arvizu Trevino

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1229, Jolanta Wozniak

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in any case the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1228, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment asking that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1209, Edoardo Gianotti

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1205, Roger Kuate

    Mr. Kuate appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1201, Annette Guetgemann

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant¡¯s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1215, Secretary-General

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-306-Corr.1, Wu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...