神马午夜福利网

Article 8.3

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 3 of 3
    UNDT/2024/042, N’Dao

    It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

    The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

    2023-UNAT-1395, Abdurrahman Turk

    The UNAT declined Mr. Turk’s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the UNDT’s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

    The UNAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The UNAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization’s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the UNAT held that the...

    2016-UNAT-610, Rahman

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the