51猎奇

UNDT RoP

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 683
    2026-UNAT-1683, Christophe Lalande

    The UNAT found that the UNDT relied very significantly on its assessment of the former staff member’s credibility in giving his oral evidence before it, disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.However, it held that this was not balanced against any similar assessment of the complainants’ credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of the former staff member. The UNAT emphasized that there was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either the former staff member’s counsel or the UNDT Judge, which was particularly significant given...

    2026-UNAT-1668, ABO

    The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General’s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member’s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

    2026-UNAT-1657, Bashkim Isufi

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in law when it awarded in-lieu compensation in the amount of 6 months' net base salary without providing reasons to support said amount. The Appeals Tribunal found that had Mr. Isufi's appointment not been unlawfully not renewed and all other relevant considerations being equal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another one-year fixed-term appointment. Factoring in a variety of applicable contingencies, including his known history of consistent and repeated less-than-satisfactory performance, together with the other usual...

    2026-UNAT-1629, Traian Turcanu

    As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu’s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute and Article 14 of the UNDT Rules, the UNDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the “appointment” of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of...

    2026-UNAT-1678, Imad Hassanein

    The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

    The UNAT held that by denying the staff member’s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

    2026-UNAT-1675, Elizabeth Isabiti Opero

    The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

    The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties’ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

    2026-UNAT-1682, Sizakele Myeni

    The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

    The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an “absolute impossibility” to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

    2026-UNAT-1670, Julian Artemio Arreza Herrera

    The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration’s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

    The UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to “analyze the facts” and “ask...