爆料网

Article 2.1

  • 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 111 - 120 of 231
    爆料网DT/2011/101, Nyakossi

    Receivability: Since the Applicant was a staff member of 爆料网OG when the contested decision was taken, it indeed affected his terms of appointment. The Tribunal is thus competent to examine the case in accordance with article 2.1 of its Statute. Selection procedure: 爆料网HCR based its decision on the advice of 爆料网DSS which did not grant clearance to the Applicant’s candidacy. However, 爆料网HCR was not compelled to follow the advice of 爆料网DSS concerning the candidacy of the Applicant because this practice is not codified in any legal text of regulatory character. Hence, the contested decision is illegal...

    爆料网DT/2011/089, Rahimi

    The Administration did not have a legal obligation towards the Applicant to take action at any stage in relation to the fraud. No legally relevant relationship between OCHA and the Applicant existed; the fact that the Applicant’s aunt submitted her applications to a 爆料网 staff member did not create such a relationship. No Organization is bound to respond to uninvited applications for jobs that the Organization had not previously announced. Neither OCHA nor any other Organization can be made liable for criminal abuse of its name and reputation.The Applicant, who resigned from her post in 爆料网FPA...

    爆料网DT/2011/055, Mialeshka

    爆料网DT noted that when the facts at issue occurred, the Applicant was neither a staff member, nor a former staff member within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网DT accordingly held that the Applicant was not a person having access to 爆料网DT and that it had to declare itself not competent to consider the application. 爆料网DT rejected the application.

    爆料网DT/2011/032, Obdeijn

    The 爆料网DT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to disclose the reasons to the 爆料网DT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The 爆料网DT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The 爆料网DT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months’ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

    爆料网DT/2011/028, Larkin

    The Tribunal found that the application was irreceivable as time-barred; it was also without merit because the alleged conflict of interest was not deemed to exist. Independent status: Bodies endowed with an independent status are integrated in the structure of the Organization and, whilst they may not receive instructions from their chain of command in performing the tasks entrusted to them, they are not entirely detached from the Secretary-General’s authority. Administrative decisions: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of acts other than administrative decisions. Redress...

    爆料网DT/2011/024, Worsley

    Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs’ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the 爆料网DT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

    爆料网DT/2012/113, El Moctar

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of 爆料网 police force (爆料网POL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the 爆料网 Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.

    爆料网DT/2012/135, Manco

    The 爆料网DT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months’ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member’s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...

    爆料网DT/2012/197, Tolstopiatov

    The Respondent claimed costs for unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s claim in respect of the delay in submitting the PF4 form, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the outstanding interest payment pursuant to Tolstopiatov 爆料网DT/2011/012, and refused the Respondent’s claim for costs. Enforcement of Judgment Order: The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest on the money which had not been fully paid under Tolstopiatov 爆料网DT/2011/012 at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus 5 percent for the relevant time period. Costs: Whilst the Tribunal would discourage...