Â鶹´«Ã½

Article 19.1

  • 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 - 7 of 7
    011 (NBI/2025), Cynthia Cline
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application. A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access. The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.
    2024-UNAT-1495-Corr.1, ABA

    The UNAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the UNDT issued the first Order. The UNAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA’s arguments were heard by the UNDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

    The UNAT held that the UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The UNAT was also not persuaded by ABA’s argument that the violation...

    2024-UNAT-1419, Nicole Wynn

    The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

    The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member’s averment...

    UNDT/2023/084, MOULANA

    As long as the Temporary Job Opening had no impact on the Applicant’s chances of selection, then an irregularity could not be relied upon as a basis for the selection process to be declared unlawful.

    The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant cannot base his argument against the selection process in JO# 136259 by questioning the process in other matters which do not affect his case.

    The Tribunal held that whilst the procedure spelt out in ST/AI/2010/3 was not followed, it was unable to see how this irregularity could have had any impact on the selection process.

    UNDT/2011/216, Cooke

    Summary Judgment The Tribunal noted that Summary Judgment can only be entered in a case where the material facts are not in dispute and a party to case is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further that for a party to seek Summary Judgment, it has to be on the merits of the case and such a party should have pleaded facts in relation to the case. The Respondent had not pleaded any material facts and had also not joined issues with the Applicant on the merits of the case. Receivability In determining the receivability of the Application, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s access to...

    UNDT/2011/174, Baron

    The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years’ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization’s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...