Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute

  • 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)¨C(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 1061 - 1070 of 1867
    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/064, Agha

    Following inter partes discussions pursuant to case management directions by the Tribunal, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw his application, confirming that he was withdrawing the matter fully, including on the merits, and with no right of reinstatement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make in view of the Applicant¡¯s unequivocal withdrawal of his application, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/090, Candusso

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, having waited for approximately one year and a half to raise claims regarding the alleged lack of access to the United Nations cafeteria facilities, the Applicant acquiesced to the arrangements put in place by the Respondent in view of the renovation-related requirements. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that, in view of the CMP-related requirements that necessitated the move to the Madison Building, the Respondent put in place alternative measures that were neither unreasonable nor unfair. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/094, Bali

    Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if heintends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/035, Luvai

    Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178, Von der Schulenburg

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/179, Staedtler

    With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/180, Kalpokas Tari

    The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/181, Laurenti

    Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/172, Bastet

    The Tribunal noted that the delegation of authority in disciplinary matters from the SG to the USG for Management in July 2009 had not been published and as such lacked a substantial requirement for taking legal effect. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the USG for Management could not further delegate this power to another person, since any kind of ¡°sub-delegation¡± should have been provided for in the initial delegation of authority by the SG to the USG for Management, which was not the case. The decision to dismiss the Applicant was taken by the OIC, USG for Management. The Tribunal found...