鶹ý

Article 9

  • 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 21 - 30 of 107
    2017-UNAT-740, Auda

    UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s claims that UNDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the application to UNDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU’s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law...

    2018-UNAT-833, Koumoin

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the UNDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

    UNDT/2009/027, Sina

    Where evidence is capable of establishing a likelihood of a connection between potentially extraneous considerations and a failure to obtain a renewal of a contract, summary dismissal is unlikely to be warranted. Where one party raises sufficient material suggesting a particular fact or facts and the other party has the sole means of refuting that inference, then an evidentiary burden to call that evidence will ordinarily arise so that a failure to do so will make it relatively easy for the other party to treat the fact as proven. Outcome: The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, without...

    UNDT/2009/015, Abboud

    The “reason to believe” must be more than mere speculation or suspicion: it must be reasonable and hence based on facts sufficiently well founded – though of course, not necessarily proved – to rationally incline the mind of the decision maker to the belief. It is clear that the question is one of fact and degree in which the decision maker is bound to act reasonably but which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. It is inaccurate to refer to such a judgment as the exercise of a discretion. If the USG in this case had in fact decided that there was “reason to believe” that the...

    UNDT/2009/086, Planas

    Since the Applicant only pointed out that the non-implementation of the indicated provision had restricted her options to be selected for posts in some duty stations, she failed to identify any such administrative decision. The Tribunal stressed that a selection process involves a series of steps which lead to an administrative decision. It stated that only if the Applicant contested the outcome of a selection process for a specific post (the administrative decision), would the Tribunal be competent to hear and pass judgement on her application.

    UNDT/2010/028, Shakir

    In accordance with former staff rule 111.2 (a) (i), the Applicant had only one month as of the receipt of the Secretary-General’s reply to submit an appeal to the JAB. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reply to her request for review on 31 January 2008 and that the JAB received her appeal only on 31 March 2008. Hence, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s appeal was late. The Tribunal examined the record of facts and concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed, which may justify a waiver of the time limits for the submission of the statement of appeal to the JAB...