蘑菇视频

Article 2.1(a)

  • 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 71 - 80 of 269
    蘑菇视频DT/2011/177, Lex

    蘑菇视频DT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG’s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. 蘑菇视频DT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ ultimate selection decision...

    蘑菇视频DT/2011/115, Ibrahim

    The Applicant’s alleged abuse of Buddy qualified as such conduct. Not returning the Applicant to the Canine Unit. It was proper not to return the Applicant to his former job after the disciplinary case against him had been dismissed. Not returning Buddy. Since Buddy was surrendered to the custody of the New York State Police, the United Nations would appear to have transferred back the property rights over Buddy to the New York State Police. Regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary case against the Applicant, it would therefore seem that the Respondent is not able to return Buddy to the...

    蘑菇视频DT/2011/217, Rosana

    A respondent who neglects to take part in the proceedings by not filing a reply within 30 days of receipt of the application may be readmitted by leave of the Tribunal only. The respondent in such a case is solely and effectively excluded by his own negligence to file a reply in time. He is not excluded by the Tribunal but by the operation of law. By his preposterous claim that the Registrar and the Judge owed him a duty to remind him of his obligations to his client, the Respondent’s Counsel, sought, in the Tribunal’s view, to provide an excuse for his own incompetence and lack of diligence...

    蘑菇视频DT/2011/096, Mbatha

    Receivability of moot claims: Even before the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had extended the Applicant’s contract beyond 30 April 2010 and it had informed him that his contract would be extended until the completion of his rebuttal. Accordingly, the application insofar as it concerns the decision to renew the Applicant’s contract until 30 April 2010 was moot as at the date on which it was submitted to the Tribunal and it is therefore not receivable. Discretion of the Secretary-General in the organization of work: The Secretary-General enjoys broad...

    蘑菇视频DT/2011/063, Hunt-Matthes

    The Tribunal found that the decision of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for the rights of the Applicant so as to make it an administrative decision. Further, the Tribunal held that when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21, a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures, including judicial review of the administrative decision taken.

    蘑菇视频DT/2011/053, Warintarawat

    Regulatory decisions v. individual administrative decisions: An applicant may plead the unlawfulness of a regulatory decision only in the context of an appeal against an individual administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory decision. The Tribunal may not rescind a regulatory decision.

    蘑菇视频DT/2012/195, Servas

    Receivability: Decisions by the Ethics Office are administrative decisions that are subject to appeal before the Tribunal, since they may directly affect staff members’ rights. A request for management evaluation has to be sought prior to the filing of the application and hence her request to regularize her application a posteriori could only be rejected, in accordance with staff rule 11.2, namely the required antecedence of the request for management evaluation to the application.

    蘑菇视频DT/2012/184, McCluskey

    Receivability ratione temporis: Time limits for contesting administrative decisions are legal imperatives and the Tribunal is bound to examine the issue of receivability. Receivability ratione materiae: By virtue of article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute only administrative decisions, allegedly in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, are appealable. In the instant case, the rejection by the Administration of the Applicant’s request to benefit from an enhanced separation package, despite the fact that he had not opted for it in due time, constituted an...

    蘑菇视频DT/2012/167, Simmons

    The Respondent contends that the application is not receivable because the Applicant did not exhaust the administrative process of seeking reconsideration of her claim pursuant to art. 17 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable as the Respondent’s contention is not supported by a proper interpretation of art. 17.