Â鶹´«Ã½

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 41 - 50 of 107
    UNDT/2013/111, Goodwin

    Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...

    UNDT/2013/047, Khisa

    Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

    UNDT/2014/111, Bello

    The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute. C

    UNDT/2014/071, Kazazi

    It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, UNOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, UNOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

    UNDT/2014/061, Nielsen

    The Tribunal noted that the rebuttal process was still ongoing and that no administrative decision had yet been taken; it further found that the UNFPA Rebuttal Policy was a regulatory instrument which was not of individual application and did not carry direct legal consequences on the Applicant; hence, these matters of the application were found to be irreceivable. Further, with regard to the Applicant having been denied access to the UN City Building on 13 February 2014, as well as the blocking of her emails after the end of her contract, the Tribunal noted that these events referred to...