神马午夜福利网

Article 18.2

  • 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 1 - 8 of 8
    002 (NBI/2025), KC
    • Appealed
    Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent’s response to his request for production of evidence. The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant’s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion. The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...
    004 (NBI/2025), Sakule Mathe Bubega
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements and pension paperwork. In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.
    2022-UNAT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. UNAT found that the UNDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the UNDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. UNAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2010-UNAT-032, Calvani

    UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

    2011-UNAT-121, Bertucci

    UNAT held that the UNDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. UNAT stated the principle that UNDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes UNDT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request UNDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

    2014-UNAT-471, Landgraf

    The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant’s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT’s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT’s refusal to...

    UNDT/2011/069, Morin

    Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

    UNDT/2013/053, Wasserstrom

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office’s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from UNDP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...