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 671 - 680 of 1867
    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1174, Hoyce Temu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1170, Matthew Lee

    This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1177, Veronica Modey-Ebi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1161, Asr Ahmed Toson

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1164, Nshuti Rugerinyange

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1165, Rhyan Ramsaroop, Miksch et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1160, Asr Ahmed Toson

    On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...