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 1711 - 1720 of 1886
    UNDT/2019/045, Mohamed

    The Tribunal found the application receivable because the Applicant filed a timely request for management evaluation. Additionally, the Tribunal was satisfied with the Applicant’s documentation regarding technical issues with the e-Filing portal that he filed to support his claim of exceptional circumstances for filing his application late. Lastly, to the extent that the resignation of the Applicant was instigated by the Respondent or his agents, the Tribunal found that this was an administrative decision capable of being challenged. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had misrepresented his...

    UNDT/2019/046, Mohamed

    Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.

    UNDT/2019/031, Dzubur

    The final decision to terminate the Applicant’s continuing appointment has not yet been taken. In this case, the General Assembly had not endorsed abolition of the specific post encumbered by the Applicant, but, rather, one of the two which were subject to the comparative review. Retaining the Applicant in service was not foreclosed and may have been effected by either the Administration’s own action or by the Tribunal’s judgment, should the Applicant’s case prevail on the merits. The contested decision did not have a direct impact on the applicant’s terms of appointment as it merely...

    UNDT/2019/033, Aahooja

    The Tribunal found that a witness’ evidence on all matters totally lacked credibility and due to its conflicting nature was at best unreliable. The different versions of the facts were entirely contradictory. In such a situation the Tribunal has no course other than to totally exclude all evidence from the witness as lacking any probative value. The testimony presented and heard by the Tribunal does not prove, at the required standard, that the charge of collusion in fraud or gross negligence against the Applicant was made out. The Respondent had the burden of proof, which he did not discharge...

    UNDT/2019/034, Tsoneva

    It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

    UNDT/2019/035/Corr. 1, Muftic

    It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

    UNDT/2019/037, Akilimali Kafachi

    At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

    UNDT/2019/006, Nikolic

    The issue of disclosing an investigation report is not new. It was, in fact, considered by this Tribunal in its judgments Adorma UNDT/2010/205 and Haydar UNDT/2012/201 as well as by UNAT in judgment Ivanov 2015-UNAT-519. In the latter, UNAT entered into consideration of the non-disclosure of an investigation report despite the fact that the Secretary-General had questioned the UNDT’s jurisdiction over such a decision. The Organisation’s obligations as stipulated in ST/SGB/2008/5 are an integral part of a staff member’s contractual rights. They include the obligations of the Organisation and...

    UNDT/2019/016, Nikolarakis

    The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant’s Counsel did not know about the Applicant’s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant’s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...