麻豆APP

UNRWA DT Statute

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 121 - 124 of 124
    UNDT/2019/150, Chhikara

    Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance—at least, as relevant to the present case—the Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a “prescribed...

    UNDT/2019/058, Younis

    The Tribunal finds that the rescission of the contested decision would not fully restore the status quo ante and would not provide adequate relief to the Applicant as the UN Leaders Programme in Cape Town, South Africa, which the Applicant was registered for participation at, was presumably already held in September 2017. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that monetary compensation alone would not provide the Applicant with appropriate relief because of the nature of the non-pecuniary harm in this case, as well as harm not having been established or proved. Considering that the Director of Mission...

    UNDT/2019/033, Aahooja

    The Tribunal found that a witness’ evidence on all matters totally lacked credibility and due to its conflicting nature was at best unreliable. The different versions of the facts were entirely contradictory. In such a situation the Tribunal has no course other than to totally exclude all evidence from the witness as lacking any probative value. The testimony presented and heard by the Tribunal does not prove, at the required standard, that the charge of collusion in fraud or gross negligence against the Applicant was made out. The Respondent had the burden of proof, which he did not discharge...

    UNDT/2022/001, Arvizu Trevino

    In the present case, in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, he explicitly “reserved” the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant’s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...