51ÁÔÆæ

For courts such as the UNDT and UNAT to be effective in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, it is imperative that their decisions, however unpalatable they appear to a losing party, are obeyed and complied with, pending any judicial avenues for a remedy if the situation so warrants. The Tribunal holds that although the Statute is silent in as far as contempt provisions are concerned, the power to adjudicate on contempt is inherent in the jurisdiction afforded to the Tribunal by the Statute. The function of the Tribunal necessarily requires that its orders would be obeyed and not...

He alleged that the non-renewal of his appointment was based on discriminatory grounds, i.e. because of his Kurdish ethnicity, and not for reasons of force majeure, namely due to the occurred earthquake, leading to the subsequent closure of the UNHCR office in Van/Turkey. The UNDT found that the decision not to renew his appointment was lawful, as the Applicant failed to adduce evidence of any breach of his rights.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The Applicant considers that the disclosure requirements did not apply to him. The Respondent failed to establish that the Applicant was required to file a financial disclosure statement for 2006. The Tribunal rescinds the Applicant¡¯s written reprimand. Any record of it is to be removed from the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File.

The UNDT found that the decision of ESCAP to employ the external candidate on the maternity leave post, prior to advertising the vacancy, for the initial period of 1 February to 31 March 2011 and for one more month subsequently, while the selection process for the maternity leave post was ongoing, was lawful. The application was dismissed.

The UNDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.

Regarding the first administrative decision, the Respondent submitted that this claim was time-barred because the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision in a timely manner even though the Management Evaluation Unit (¡°MEU¡±) had actually granted the Applicant leave to file the request after the time limit had already expired; a decision which the Under-Secretary-General of Management had subsequently affirmed in the management evaluation letter. As for the second administrative decision, the Respondent contended that the claim in relation to the relevant...

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.