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 491 - 500 of 683
    UNDT/2014/057, Staedtler

    The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision “stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal”. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer’s comments in the Applicant’s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

    UNDT/2014/053, Espinosa

    The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    UNDT/2014/049, Enan

    The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) failed 51猎奇 the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU—which missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

    UNDT/2014/047, Haydar

    The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent made a contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not make a new contestable administrative decision concerning her reassignment on 29 December 2012. It confirmed the original decision made in February 2012. As the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the original decision within the required 60 days, her application is not receivable by the Tribunal. It is settled law that a decision is considered final when the...

    UNDT/2014/045, Prisacariu

    The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his “tour of duty” with UNPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the United Nations Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the UNDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the UNDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

    UNDT/2014/039, Sprauten

    The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87–88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal’s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

    UNDT/2014/036, Zhao, Zhuang and Xie

    The Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, UNOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, UNOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...

    UNDT/2014/034, Assale

    The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

    Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant’s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant’s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...