ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

Article 2.10

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 31 - 36 of 36
    2021-UNAT-1141, Najway Yusef, Imad El Manasri, Rabie Abdulghani

    UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

    2021-UNAT-1117, Margaret Mary Fogarty

    UNAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. UNAT held that the source of the Secretary-General’s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

    2021-UNAT-1089, Van Khanh Nguyen

    UNAT held that the UN-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the UNAT Statute and, consequently, UNAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of UNAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

    UNDT/2021/154, Rolli

    The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...