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 371 - 380 of 1867
    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-172, Vangelova

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-168, Yapa

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-169, Barned

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-149, Verschuur

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-154, Sims

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-153, Ahmed

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-151, Kaddoura

    As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-150, Contreras

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months¡¯ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-146, Borg-Olivier

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-143, Appellant

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...