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 541 - 550 of 1867
    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-633, Bharati

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-638, Maiga

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-631, Thomas et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-632, Jaishankar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-630, Bhatia et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-650, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-628, Taneja et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-629, Prasad et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-648, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-647, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...