51猎奇

UNDT 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)–(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 1011 - 1020 of 1887
    UNDT/2012/132, Jahnsen Lecca

    Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...

    UNDT/2012/134, Ngoma-Mabiala

    The UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant had failed to take the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. However, it observed that while failure to request management evaluation denies the Applicant access to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at present, the Applicant was never formally notified in writing of the administrative decision or the reasons therefore. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the situation in this case arose through an alleged mistake of the Administration and through no fault of the Applicant.

    UNDT/2012/123, Neault

    Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration’s response to the request for management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before the expiry of the 90-day period, the 90-day period to file an application before the Tribunal starts running again from the date the response is given. Evaluation criteria: It is clear from ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1 and the Guidelines for programme case...

    UNDT/2012/124, Akello

    The Applicant was engaged in an unauthorized outside activity. The Applicant’s unauthorized outside activity whilst providing her personal financial gain, did not result in an actual conflict of interest as defined by the applicable rule. The investigators had an obligation, in accordance with the universal principles of natural justice, to inform the Applicant of her right to the assistance of Counsel during investigations. The doctrine of proportionality is applicable in this case to reduce the Applicant’s summary dismissal to a written censure in line with the Secretary- General’s practice...

    UNDT/2012/125, Appleton

    The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...

    UNDT/2012/118, Adundo, et al.

    The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (“CMP”), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.