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 411 - 420 of 666
    UNDT/2013/115, Kissila

    The UNDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the 麻豆APP and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

    UNDT/2013/113, Skourikhine

    The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant’s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

    UNDT/2013/112, Eissa

    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 he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

    UNDT/2013/111, Goodwin

    Placement on SLWFP: The Tribunal held that there was ample evidence that the underlying rationale behind the placement of the Applicant on SLWFP related to misconduct and as such, his suspension cannot be justified under former staff rule 105.2(a)(i) since the Respondent did not have the requisite authority to place him on SLWFP in the context of an investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s placement of the Applicant on SLWFP was in actuality a suspension from service pursuant to former staff rule 110.2 and section 6 of ST/AI/371. Due Process: The Tribunal held that the scope...

    UNDT/2013/110, Ginivan

    The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his right to participate as a candidate for leadership in the UNSU through a free and fair election process and his right to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought “an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant’s contention that the election results are not...

    UNDT/2013/109, Saffir

    The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought “an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 UNSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant’s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...

    UNDT/2013/107, Al-Mulla

    The UNDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. UNDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The UNDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

    UNDT/2013/100, Mohammed

    MEU’s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. UNDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. UNDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. UNDT refused the Respondent’s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

    UNDT/2013/082, Garcia-Webster

    Following successful settlement discussions, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing all of her allegations and claims. The UNDT stated in the judgment that, the dispute having been settled by way of a settlement agreement, the Applicant withdrew her case fully, finally, and entirely, including on the merits. The case was closed without liberty to reinstate or appeal.