¹ú²úAV

ST/AI/2005/3

  • Medical Clearances and Fitness to Work (UNHCR/AI/2022/03)
  • MONUSCO AI No. 2013/15
  • ST/A1/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/149/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/155/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.4
  • ST/AI/189/Add.6/Rev.5
  • ST/AI/1994/4
  • ST/AI/1997/4
  • ST/AI/1997/6
  • ST/AI/1997/7
  • ST/AI/1998/1
  • ST/AI/1998/4
  • ST/AI/1998/7
  • ST/AI/1998/7/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/1998/9
  • ST/AI/1999/111
  • ST/AI/1999/12
  • ST/AI/1999/13
  • ST/AI/1999/16
  • ST/AI/1999/17
  • ³§°Õ/´¡±õ/1999/17​
  • ST/AI/1999/3
  • ST/AI/1999/6
  • ST/AI/1999/7
  • ST/AI/1999/8
  • ST/AI/1999/9
  • ST/AI/2000/1
  • ST/AI/2000/10
  • ST/AI/2000/11
  • ST/AI/2000/12
  • ST/AI/2000/13
  • ST/AI/2000/16
  • ST/AI/2000/19
  • ST/AI/2000/20
  • ST/AI/2000/4
  • ST/AI/2000/5
  • ST/AI/2000/6
  • ST/AI/2000/8
  • ST/AI/2000/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2000/9
  • ST/AI/2001/2
  • ST/AI/2001/7/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2001/8
  • ST/AI/2002/1
  • ST/AI/2002/3
  • ST/AI/2002/4
  • ST/AI/2003/1
  • ST/AI/2003/3
  • ST/AI/2003/4
  • ST/AI/2003/7
  • ST/AI/2003/8
  • ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2004/1
  • ST/AI/2004/3
  • ST/AI/2005/12
  • ST/AI/2005/2
  • ST/AI/2005/2/Amend.2
  • ST/AI/2005/3
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2005/3/Section 3.2
  • ST/AI/2005/5
  • ST/AI/2006
  • ST/AI/2006/3
  • ST/AI/2006/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2006/4
  • ST/AI/2006/5
  • ST/AI/2006/5/Section 11
  • ST/AI/2007/1
  • ST/AI/2007/3
  • ST/AI/2008/3
  • ST/AI/2008/5
  • ST/AI/2009/1
  • ST/AI/2009/10
  • ST/AI/2010/1
  • ST/AI/2010/12
  • ST/AI/2010/3
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 11.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 2.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.1
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 6.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 7.5
  • ST/AI/2010/3/Section 9.3
  • ST/AI/2010/4
  • ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.1
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 15.7
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 4
  • ST/AI/2010/5/Section 7
  • ST/AI/2010/6
  • ST/AI/2010/7
  • ST/AI/2011/3
  • ST/AI/2011/4
  • ST/AI/2011/5
  • ST/AI/2011/6
  • ST/AI/2011/7
  • ST/AI/2012/1
  • ST/AI/2012/2
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev. 1
  • ST/AI/2012/2/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2012/3
  • ST/AI/2012/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2013/1
  • ST/AI/2013/1/Corr. 1
  • ST/AI/2013/3
  • ST/AI/2013/4
  • ST/AI/2015/2
  • ST/AI/2016/1
  • ST/AI/2016/2
  • ST/AI/2016/6
  • ST/AI/2016/8
  • ST/AI/2017/1
  • ST/AI/2017/2
  • ST/AI/2018/1
  • ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10
  • ST/AI/2018/10/Corr.1
  • ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1: sec. 6.1 and sec. 6.2
  • ST/AI/2018/5
  • ST/AI/2018/6
  • ST/AI/2018/7
  • ST/AI/2019/1
  • ST/AI/2019/1/Section 4.3
  • ST/AI/2019/3/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/2020/3
  • ST/AI/2020/5
  • ST/AI/2021/4
  • ST/AI/222
  • ST/AI/234
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/234/Rev.1/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/240/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/246
  • ST/AI/273
  • ST/AI/292
  • ST/AI/293
  • ST/AI/294
  • ST/AI/299
  • ST/AI/308/Rev.1
  • ST/AI/309/Rev.2
  • ST/AI/326
  • ST/AI/343
  • ST/AI/367
  • ST/AI/371
  • ST/AI/371/Amend.1
  • ST/AI/372
  • ST/AI/379
  • ST/AI/394
  • ST/AI/397
  • ST/AI/400
  • ST/AI/401
  • ST/AI/404
  • ST/AI/408
  • ST/AI/411
  • ST/Al/2010/5
  • UNHCR/AI/2016/3
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/16/Corrigendum ((Administrative Instruction on the Management of Temporary Appointments)
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1
  • UNMISS AI No. 005/2011
  • UNOPS Administrative Instruction Concerning Contract Renewals of Staff Members 2010 AI/HPRG/2010/02
  • Showing 11 - 20 of 21

    Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by UNSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

    The UNDT found that the Applicant’s claims with regard to the issue of lien and loan were without merit. With respect to the issue of placement on special leave without pay, the UNDT found that the Applicant should have been placed on sick leave on half salary and half annual leave for a period of up to three months. The UNDT ordered the Respondent to make appropriate adjustments, including any related payments and adjustments to benefits and entitlements, to reflect the placement of the Applicant on three months of sick leave on half pay combined with half-day of annual leave commencing 22...

    This case was first decided by the Dispute Tribunal by Leboeuf et al. UNDT/2010/206, rendered on 30 November 2010. The case, however, was remanded by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for “further proceedingsâ€. The UNDT found that the Applicants' claims against the lawfulness of the change introduced in December 2004, with effect from January 2005, are time-barred and not receivable under arts. 8.3 and 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider them and the application was receivable only with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on...

    Home leave: The Tribunal concluded that there is nothing in staff rule 5.2 which indicates that the extension or the duration of the extension of a contract of employment is to be decided along with the sick leave entitlements of a staff member. Extension and sick leave cannot be merged to motivate a decision on whether to extend a contract or not. The entitlement to home leave is premised on 12 months service at a designated duty station with the sole condition that the service of the staff member is expected to continue at least three months after the staff member returns to the duty station...

    The UNDT remanded the Applicant’s request to the Secretary-General for consideration. The UNDT directed that, within one month of the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall submit any further documentation to the MSD New York that he wishes to be taken into consideration. The UNDT further ordered that, within 90 calendar days of the date of this Judgment, the Respondent, through a properly designated office, shall render a decision on the Applicant’s request.

    Case No. UNDT/GVA/2015/129

    Contingency of the Applicant’s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

    Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

    The Applicant duly performed the obligation to inform the Administration within the stipulated timelines of his ill health and diligently initiated and maintained communication with his supervisor, UNMISS Human Resources Section (HRS), the UNMISS Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Services Division (MSD). He sent all documentation requested of him in that regard. The review and non-certification of the Applicant’s sick leave were unduly delayed by the MSD and that the said delay was prejudicial to the Applicant. MSD and UNMISS/HRS owed a duty to the Applicant to advise him of the option...

    The application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s actions were consistent with a concluded intent not to return to her duty station, no matter the lack of basis. Therefore, the Respondent’s decision to separate her on the ground of abandonment of post was lawful.

    In relation to the Applicant’s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant’s...