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 401 - 410 of 1867
    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-260, Rahman

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-258, Kananura

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-249, di Giacomo

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the access to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-247, Mushema

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-256, Benchebbak

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-246, Mwamsaku

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the present case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-244, Bali

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-243, Hersh

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-242, Charles

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in affirming the JAB¡¯s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-238, Massabni

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...