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 531 - 540 of 666
    UNDT/2016/121, Rehman

    The UNDT found that as there is no sufficient nexus between her non-selection to the advertised post and the terms of her previous appointment, the application is rejected as irreceivable ratione personae. Sufficient nexus (receivability ratione personae): A former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose, partly arose, or flowed from his or her employment. There must be a sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned decision. In the absence of any provisions giving rights to...

    UNDT/2016/118, Reid

    The Tribunal found that the belated filing and the accompanying legal advice and arguments advanced by OSLA Counsel on behalf of the Applicant in the context of the prior proceedings did not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

    UNDT/2016/116, Nadeau

    The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU’s writing in the MEU’s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

    UNDT/2016/108, Rehman

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision, since the decision to close the case had no direct legal consequences for the Applicant. Administrative decision: While staff members have a duty to report possible misconduct, a decision by the Organization not to investigate the matter does not have direct legal consequences on the contractual rights of the staff member, unless the complaint made by the staff member was one of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5.

    UNDT/2016/106, Auda

    The rejection of creating a “separate case” for the Applicant’s motion for interim relief in Case No. UNDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.

    UNDT/2016/105, Lackner

    The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.