麻豆APP

Article 8.3

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 177
    2025-UNAT-1602, Hatim Mahmoud Sobier

    The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the staff member’s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The UNAT found that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the UNDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

    The UNAT further held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

    2024-UNAT-1503-Corr.1, Amjad Issa

    The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months’ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months’ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

    The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

    2025-UNAT-1612, Jean Daniel Ondo Mvondo

     

    The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

    The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

    2025-UNAT-1548, Ghazal Ozairi

    The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

    The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

    014 (NBI/2024), Jayne Kimani
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant’s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.
    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.
    UNDT/2025/045, Dorah Likukela

    The Tribunal held:

    a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

    b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

    c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

    2025-UNAT-1542, AAO

    The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

    2025-UNAT-1551, Leonid Dolgopolov

     

    The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

    The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

    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...