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 641 - 650 of 683
    UNDT/2020/057, Applicant

    The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...

    UNDT/2020/179, Tanifum

    The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...

    UNDT/2020/155, Ssewaguma et al.

    The Tribunal found the application receivable because: 1)Although the Applicants, who were self-represented, referred to and addressed some of the findings in the management evaluation response at section VII of their application, the applications were evidently not directed at the Management Evaluation Unit response but rather at the decision not to renew their appointments beyond 30 June 2019. 2)The 5 April 2019 notice was not unambiguous and the non-extension decision may have been interpreted as conditioned upon the future General Assembly resolution on the budget. The communication dated...

    UNDT/2020/138, Wenz

    The Applicant’s professional counsel, by his own admission, was well aware that the Applicant would not be able to meet the filing deadline as he encountered difficulties in getting instructions from her. Contrary to his assertion, it was his professional duty to promptly notify the Tribunal and request relief. However, he failed not only to promptly inform the Tribunal of his client’s inability to meet the deadline but also to provide any reason for it in the application itself. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances prevented the Applicant from timely...

    UNDT/2020/113, Dolgopolov

    Given that the decision not to lift the Applicant’s immunity is not an administrative decision capable of judicial review, the request for compensation for any harm caused by such decision is consequently also beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence. The Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the Administration’s refusal of his claim for compensation. This part of his application is therefore not receivable under art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a).

    UNDT/2020/097, Reilly

    Procedural issues Respondent’s challenge to the admissibility of certain documents Art. 18 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure contains the set of norms applicable to evidence. However, except for article 18.6, there is no specific provision in relation to admissibility of evidence based on recordings made without consent. The Tribunal finds that the transcript of a meeting the Applicant recorded is not admissible in the proceedings because it is tainted by the fact that one of the participants at the meeting was not aware that the meeting was being recorded. The Applicant cannot make use of...

    UNDT/2020/089, Faisal

    The Tribunal has chosen to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Recalling that the Applicant only filed his application in June 2020, the Tribunal finds that his challenge against the 2013 decision is not receivable ratione temporis. In the absence of a request for management evaluation, the Tribunal cannot but find that the Applicant’s challenge to the 2018 and 2019 decisions is not receivable ratione materiae.