ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

Article 16.1

  • 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 11 - 20 of 27
    2016-UNAT-648, Nielsen

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-UNAT-647, Nielsen

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal against UNDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that UNDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

    2018-UNAT-823, Ngoga

    UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the UNDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. UNAT dismissed the...

    UNDT/2012/116, Nwuke

    The UNDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action – urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

    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 United Nations 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/2014/143, Kusuma

    The Tribunal ruled that the transfer within the recipient organization does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that, hence, the application was irreceivable ratione materiae in this respect. Regarding UNICEF's alleged failure to intervene to prevent the Applicant’s reassignment, while conceding that the Organization has a duty of care vis-à-vis its employees, the Tribunal found that such duty had not been breached in this case, since the Applicant informed UNICEF of her reassignment only a few days before she ceased being a UNICEF staff member following her inter-organization...

    UNDT/2015/110, Nguyen-Kropp

    The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that because the Ethics Office is independent, its acts and/or omissions are not subject to judicial review. However, the Tribunal found that, given the current state of the jurisprudence, it had no option but to accept that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal judgments in Wasserstrom 2014-UNAT-457 and Nartey 2015-UNAT-544, the matters contested in the applications are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review.

    UNDT/2015/091, Al-Badri

    Abolishment of the Applicant’s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent’s restructuring strategy.