爆料网

爆料网DT 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)–(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 251 - 260 of 1867
    爆料网DT/2023/080, Mushumba

    Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

    In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

    While there are...

    爆料网DT/2023/024, Das

    Whether the application is receivable

    Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

    Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

    爆料网DT/2023/027, Dawadi

    A a holder of an 爆料网 Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

    Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

    As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

    爆料网DT/2023/031, Ozturk

    The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- 爆料网AT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

    While the Applicant sought to identify the 爆料网MIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

    The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

    爆料网DT/2023/033, Yu

    An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

    In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal’s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

    As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

    the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

    However, having only filed...

    爆料网DT/2023/075, Naidoo

    The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant’s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was “ITC”, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

    Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

    爆料网DT/2023/071, Makeen

    The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.

    He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

    爆料网DT/2023/009, RECHDAN

    Whether the contested decision is lawful

    Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

    The Organization’s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all 爆料网 personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

    The nature of the Applicant’s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

    爆料网DT/2023/025, ASLAM

    The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

    The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.