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 1031 - 1040 of 1887
    UNDT/2012/098, McDonald

    Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant’s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent’s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

    UNDT/2012/099, Okongo

    Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant’s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent’s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

    UNDT/2012/103, Gehr

    Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member’s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member’s performance appraisal.

    UNDT/2012/104, Manco

    The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

    UNDT/2012/096, Rathore

    As consistently held by UNAT, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Time limits prescribed for administrative review (and management evaluation under the new system), which could be waived under the previous system, cannot be waived under article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in article 8.3.

    UNDT/2012/097, Abedraboh

    This is particularly the case in employment within the United Nations which is highly valued. Once out of the system the prospect of returning to a comparable post within the United Nations is significantly reduced. The damage to career opportunities and the consequential effect on one’s life chances cannot adequately be compensated by money. Although the Applicant’s suspension of action did not specify a date until which the requested suspension of action should be applied, the UNDT granted it but limited it in time, per art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal, to the...

    UNDT/2012/087, Omwenga

    The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to request a review under former staff rule 111.2(a) and, given Jennings, the Tribunal could not waive the time limit even if it wished to. In any event the Application was well out of time, the strict rule being that an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision, as per article 8.4 of the Statute.

    UNDT/2012/089, Konate

    The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...

    UNDT/2012/090, Al-Alamy

    The UNDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The UNDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.

    UNDT/2012/081, Maloka Mpacko

    The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The UNDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the UNDT did not find it...