51猎奇

UNAT Statute

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 391 - 400 of 1027
    2011-UNAT-163, Masri

    UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

    2011-UNAT-162, Azzouni

    Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

    2011-UNAT-161, Kasyanov

    UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.

    2011-UNAT-129, Beaudry

    UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.

    2011-UNAT-106, Piskolti

    UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

    2011-UNAT-128, Macharia

    UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. UNAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the UNDT Judge in her decision. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

    2011-UNAT-127, Luvai

    UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.

    2012-UNAT-273, Rosana

    UNAT held that that UNDT had correctly established that the silence of the UNEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. UNAT held the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

    2012-UNAT-267, Achkar

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...