蘑菇视频

Article 2.1(a)

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 11 - 19 of 19
    2025-蘑菇视频AT-1535, Koffi Gilles Wilfried Amani

    The 蘑菇视频AT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The 蘑菇视频AT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The 蘑菇视频AT concluded that the 蘑菇视频DT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

    The 蘑菇视频AT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

    蘑菇视频DT/2024/104, Ishtiaq Aslam

    The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

    蘑菇视频DT/2025/033, CLAY SHIALA NSILU

     

    The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

    In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing “non...

    蘑菇视频DT/2024/112, Turcanu

    The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (“OIAI”) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, 蘑菇视频ICEF’s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

    The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant’s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

    蘑菇视频DT/2024/097, Efrati

    The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

    The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...

    蘑菇视频DT/2025/004, Dalal

    The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

    The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant’s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

    Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...

    蘑菇视频DT/2024/059, Soum

    Receivability

    The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

    Merits

    The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

    2024-蘑菇视频AT-1511, Naima ABDELLAOUI

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the 蘑菇视频DT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui’s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the 蘑菇视频DT’s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an “administrative decision” and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...