鶹ý

UNDT RoP

  • 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 659
    002 (NBI/2025), KC
    • Appealed
    Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent’s response to his request for production of evidence. The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant’s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion. The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...
    004 (NBI/2025), Sakule Mathe Bubega
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements and pension paperwork. In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.
    002 (GVA/2024), Torres Sibille
    • Appealed
    The Applicant argued that the contested decision was prima facie unlawful on two grounds: The justification for abolishing her post was false and misleading. UNAMA had created a legal expectation of contract renewal. Regarding the first claim, the Tribunal held that a staff member’s disagreement with the rationale behind post abolition does not render the decision unlawful. Additionally, while UNAMA officials could have been more transparent when the Applicant sought clarification, their lack of candor—though unfortunate—did not amount to unlawfulness in the decision not to renew her...
    2025-UNAT-1539, Desire Hatungimana

    The UNAT held that the UNDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

    It found that the UNDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020. While Ms. V’s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the UNAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

    UNDT/2025/013, Martin Akerman

    The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

    In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

    086 (NY/2024), Sinha

    The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.

    The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.

    102 (NY/2024), Stockholder

    The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the motion for interim measures concerned appointment, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

    Accordingly, the motion for interim measures during the proceedings was rejected.

    In any case, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented as the Applicant had been separated from UNHCR.

    011 (NY/2024), Chaudhary

    For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute (Evan...