麻豆传媒

Article 18.4

  • 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 1 - 4 of 4
    UNDT/2022/063, Rabbat

    Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement “measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures”. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration’s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration’s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...

    UNDT/2011/069, Morin

    Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

    UNDT/2013/120, Applicant

    The withdrawal request was filed more than two years after the initial application and prior to it the Applicant never requested a joinder of the present case and Case No. UNDT/NY/2012/070. The Applicant did not present sufficient legal grounds to grant his request for joinder. Although the Tribunal no longer needs to make a determination on the merits, the present decision represents a final disposal of the matter and the Tribunal will consider it withdrawn in finality, including on the merits. The application is dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate. There are no exceptional...

    UNDT/2014/034, Assale

    The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent’s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

    Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant’s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant’s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...