UNAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant UNDT Registry. UNAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. UNAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. UNAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT...
Article 2.7
-
Article 1.2(c)
1
-
Article 10.1
2
-
Article 10.2
9
-
Article 10.5
11
-
Article 10.5(a)
5
-
Article 10.5(b)
5
-
Article 10.6
10
-
Article 10.8
1
-
Article 10.9
8
-
Article 11
29
-
Article 11.1
49
-
Article 11.2
11
-
Article 11.3
22
-
Article 11.4
14
-
Article 18
1
-
Article 18.1
6
-
Article 2
25
-
Article 2.1
156
-
Article 2.1
9
-
Article 2.1(a)
267
-
Article 2.1(a)
20
-
Article 2.1(b)
4
-
Article 2.1(c)
3
-
Article 2.1(d)
24
-
Article 2.1(e)
33
-
Article 2.10
35
-
Article 2.2
5
-
Article 2.2(a)
2
-
Article 2.3
18
-
Article 2.4(b)
8
-
Article 2.5
62
-
Article 2.6
2
-
Article 2.7
1
-
Article 2.8
1
-
Article 2.9
20
-
Article 2.9(a)
1
-
Article 2(b)
1
-
Article 2(c)
2
-
Article 2(e)
5
-
Article 24
1
-
Article 3.2
1
-
Article 4
2
-
Article 5
2
-
Article 6
1
-
Article 6.2
1
-
Article 7
11
-
Article 7.1
13
-
Article 7.1(c)
10
-
Article 7.2
3
-
Article 7.3
8
-
Article 7.4
3
-
Article 7.5
9
-
Article 8
1
-
Article 8.1
5
-
Article 8.1(c)
8
-
Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
1
-
Article 8.2
11
-
Article 8.3
84
-
Article 9
13
-
Article 9.1
11
-
Article 9.1(a)
23
-
Article 9.1(b)
22
-
Article 9.2
34
-
Article 9.3
4
-
Article 9.4
4
-
Article 9.5
16
-
Article 9(b)
1
Showing 1 - 1 of 1