麻豆APP

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 391 - 400 of 666
    UNDT/2012/025, Ba

    The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...

    UNDT/2012/005, Balinge

    The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.

    UNDT/2012/003, Kiarie-Nyoike

    In this case, the Applicant filed an application for revision of the judgment out of time. A decisive or material fact is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. That fact must be of significant weight such that its application to the case should lead to a revision of the judgment.The Applicant was investigated and later summarily dismissed by UNHCR on allegations of corruption in refugee processing in the Nairobi office of UNHCR. The Applicant was also arrested by the Kenyan Police and charged in a Kenyan Court with various criminal offences, however, the Applicant was...

    UNDT/2013/094, Bali

    Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if heintends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

    UNDT/2013/064, Agha

    Following inter partes discussions pursuant to case management directions by the Tribunal, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant’s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

    UNDT/2013/036, Arigi-Oikelomen

    Due process: The evaluation of the Applicant’s performance for the 2008/2009 reporting cycle was not carried out in accordance with the established procedures and materially discredits the Respondent’s case. UNON had an obligation to defer the non-renewal decision until the rebuttal process had been completed but failed to do so. This was a violation of the Applicant’s due process rights. Bad faith: The negative relationship between the Applicant’s former FRO and SRO was contributory to the non- renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Applicant’s SRO demonstrated ill-motive and unethical...

    UNDT/2013/180, Kalpokas Tari

    The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the UN do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

    UNDT/2013/175, Belhachmi

    The Applicant’s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant’s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.