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 481 - 490 of 1867
    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-410, Igbinedion

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that parties before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remained legally valid until such time as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order was vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part.

    Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-400, Tadonki

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-402, Egglesfield

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal authority for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to commence the...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-606, Hayek

    As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-605, Hosang

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-591, Gakumba

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-601, Karseboom

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to determine or assume that the injury was service-related; to assume that there was a likelihood of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) would have reached a different conclusion had it followed the correct procedure; that the ABCC made its recommendations based on uncertain facts and inference which were derived, improbably, from the absence of evidence; that after the second accident, the staff member was permanently disabled and unable to work...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-597, Wu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-590, Applicant

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-600, James

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...