鶹ý

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 11 - 15 of 15

    UNDT/2013/062, Hersh

    Classification (post) Due process Separation from service Referral for accountability

    Classification - There is no evidence that the procedure for a re-classification of the Broadcast Technology Officer (“BTO”) post encumbered by the Applicant in UNMIS was ever undertaken. As already pointed out, the Chief of radio took it upon herself to re-write the competencies of the post to which in January 2010, the Applicant had been competitively recruited before she came on board as Chief of radio, perhaps in order to make the Applicant who was encumbering the post, less eligible.

    Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    UNDT/2014/092, Birya

    Due process Delay Privileges and immunities Waiver of immunity Referral for accountability

    The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS UNON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS UNON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    UNDT/2016/085, Hashim

    Non-renewal Arbitrary or improper motive Reason(s) Separation from service

    Restructuring process: The Tribunal concluded that there were no procedural irregularities in either the creation of Oversight and Support Division (OSD) or the subsequent restructuring/realignment process. Both were undertaken in a fully transparent manner, with full consultation of all staff members including the Applicant. Sufficiency of reasons: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given reasons for the decision on more than one occasion including those conveyed to her by her staff representative following a meeting with UNDP Senior Management. These reasons were based on the...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    UNDT/2021/065, Mdoe

    Disciplinary matters / misconduct Abuse of authority Disciplinary measure or sanction Sexual harassment

    The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...

    Full judgment
    Case digest