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 491 - 500 of 1867
    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-584, Gebremariam

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-581, Selim

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-577, Staedler

    Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-566, Terragnolo

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-572, Ivanov

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, upheld the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on this point. On compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s offer of USD 1,000 was...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-561, Pirraku

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues of...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-558, Kouadio

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-559, Khan

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-562, Birya

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-551, Ibom

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute which provided...