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 411 - 420 of 1867
    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-235, Wilson

    To the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the withdrawal request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-224, Zhouk

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-255, Igunda

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-254, Nyakossi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-228, Kozlov and Romadanov

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-230, Nwuke

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-229, Tetova

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-223, Rawat

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-220, Mezoui

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-214, Fradin De Bellabre

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/080, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to order his reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...