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 651 - 659 of 659
    UNDT/2021/065, Mdoe

    The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...

    UNDT/2021/029, Brown

    The Applicant is a former staff member who separated from OHCHR in May 2015. Following her separation from service, the Applicant made declarations on her own volition and in an individual capacity to a journalist alleging that her contract was not renewed “after” she engaged in so-called whistleblowing activities during her employment with the Organization. The journalist contacted the Spokesperson, OHCHR and requested OHCHR’s comments in relation to the Applicant’s allegations. In March 2018, the Spokesperson, OHCHR, exchanged three “off the record” emails with the journalist and it was the...

    UNDT/2021/006, Silva

    Even though the relevant legal framework provides no guidance on the procedure to be followed for a transfer decision, the general principle of good faith and fair dealings dictates that a staff member should typically—and at a minimum—be consulted about such transfer before the final decision is made and priorly be provided with a genuine opportunity to comment thereon --As a matter of good faith and fair dealings, an administrative decision that significantly alters the terms and conditions of a staff member’s employment should be notified to this person in a formal written decision --It is...

    UNDT/2022/010-Corr.1, Mukhopadhyay

    The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

    UNDT/2022/010, Mukhopadhyay

    The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

    UNDT/2022/007, Shuaeb

    Considering that the Tribunal’s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue UNDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

    UNDT/2022/003, Soni

    Pursuant to art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and to established jurisprudence, the Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal’s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable. Likewise, art. 19 provides that it may issue any order or direction that is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, such provision allows the Tribunal to deal with issues of receivability as a preliminary matter in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the Tribunal can...

    UNDT/2009/010, Campos

    The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant’s cases had been transferred to the UNDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2009/005.