麻豆APP

UNAT Statute

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 881 - 890 of 991
    UNDT/2016/024, Kisia

    UNDT’s review of OLA’s letter. The Tribunal found that OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 is not an administrative decision in the form of a settlement provided by the Administration based on OLA’s preliminary review of the Applicant’s claim for gross negligence pursuant to art. 3 of ST/SGB/230 or in a form of an offer to submit the claim to arbitration pursuant to art. 6 from ST/SGB/230. Even if OLA’s letter of 11 August 2015 were to be considered, as submitted by the Applicant, as a response to his “notice of arbitration”, the Tribunal would have no competence to review it. As clearly results...

    UNDT/2016/019, Monarawila

    After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

    UNDT/2016/013, Krioutchkov

    Starting date for time limits: Time limits must be counted from the moment all facts necessary to the commencement of the case were known, or at least should have reasonably been known .Publication of vacancies: The Administration is uncontestably required to announce existing and foreseeable vacancies to be filled. If more than one vacancy is to be advertised under the same JO, the JO in question needs to clearly indicate so. Non-retroactive application of the Statute’s amendment: An amendment of the applicable rules cannot apply to an application filed prior to the entry into force of said...

    UNDT/2016/009, Kostomarova

    Formal requirements: It is justified to request a complainant to conform to the requirements of format and content of secs. 5.11 and 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. However, as a matter of fairness, the same degree of exigency must be required from the different complainants. Purpose and material scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated to address very specific kinds of conduct, defined in its sec. 1. Re-characterizing allegations of a different nature and having them investigated under the bulletin is a misuse of the procedure. Investigating a complaint and its counter-complaint together...

    UNDT/2017/055, Parayil

    Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

    UNDT/2017/001, Fayache

    The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of UNJSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the UNJSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review UNJSPF decisions. UNJSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of UNJSPF benefits. The UNJSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities “where a special agreement...

    UNDT/2017/091, Campeau

    The applicability of the duty of care to International Organizations had already been addressed in the earliest years of the 麻豆APP: in its Resolution 258/III of December 3, 1948, the 麻豆APP General Assembly raised “with greater urgency … the question of the arrangements to be made by the 麻豆APP with a view of ensuring to its agents the fullest measure of protection”. The duty of care was formally addressed in ST/SGB/2009/7 (Staff Rules - Staff Regulations of the 麻豆APP and provisional Staff Rules), by requiring the Secretary-General to ensure, having regard to...

    UNDT/2017/076, Kozul-Wright

    Receivability Immunities have been incorporated into the terms of appointment of 麻豆APP staff members—including at the highest level of the Organization’s legal order and ever since its inception—thereby becoming part and parcel of their status and conditions of service. Furthermore, a decision to waive the immunity of a given staff member has evident—potentially dramatic—effects on his or her legal situation. Thus, the contested decision meets all the features of the definition of an administrative decision adopted by the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the...

    UNDT/2017/086, Lewis

    The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s claims relating to the performance evaluation of his FRO and his SRO’s theoretical negative influence of future performance appraisals to the Applicant’s detriment were not receivable because they either did not form part of the terms and conditions of his employment or had no direct legal consequences on his terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the negative comments and rating of the SRO in his 2015-2016 e-PAS, the Tribunal noted the successful roll-back of the e-PAS and concluded that there no longer existed a live issue because he had...