Â鶹APP

The UNDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office¡¯s failures and/or...

Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the UNDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicants were not eligible to be paid termination indemnity and that the decision was lawful.

The UNDT found that the Applicant contested the decision not to renew his ¡°tour of duty¡± with UNPOL, which was made by the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs. This was not an administrative decision made by the Â鶹APP Administration, the Secretary-General or his duly delegated officers and, under art. 2.1 of the UNDT Statute, the application was not receivable. Further, the UNDT found that the applicant was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that it was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had had sexual intercourse with two persons under the age of eighteen and that the sanction of dismissal, together with a fine, were proportionate to the established misconduct. This conclusion was independent from the outcome of the judicial proceedings before the national courts of Kosovo with respect to the violation(s) of the CCK. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine(1) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was...

Receivability; The Tribunal was satisfied that the object of the application was sufficiently clear and determined that it was two-folded finding that: a)On the one hand, the Applicant challenged the deduction of 25% of his salary implementing the alimony order of a Kazakh court; and; b)On the other hand, the Applicant contested the Administration¡¯s refusal to recognize his concerned daughter (El.) as his dependent for the purpose of the Â鶹APP¡¯ child dependency benefits.; With respect to the refusal to recognize child El. as the Applicant¡¯s dependent for the purpose of the United...

Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time UNMIK¡¯s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant¡¯s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant¡¯s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant¡¯s rebuttal and UNMIK¡¯s transmission of the rebuttal panel¡¯s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant¡¯s...