ąú˛úAV

OAJ Categories

  • Alternative appointment
  • Priority consideration
  • Termination
  • Abusive conduct
  • Contempt
  • Costs
  • Manifest abuse
  • Definition
  • Implied administrative decision
  • Notification
  • Reasons
  • Administrative decision
  • Appointment of Limited Duration
  • Continuing appointment
  • Fixed-term appointment
  • Permanent appointment
  • Probationary appointment
  • Temporary appointment
  • Benefits and entitlements
  • Benefits and entitlements
  • Disciplinary
  • Non-disciplinary
  • Classification (post)
  • Aggravating/mitigating factors
  • Burden of proof
  • Duty of mitigation
  • Evidence of harm
  • Exemplary/punitive damages (prohibition against award of)
  • In-lieu compensation
  • Loss of chance
  • Maximum amount / exceptional circumstances
  • Non-pecuniary (moral) damages
  • Pecuniary (material) damages
  • Conduct of counsel
  • Abuse of authority
  • Abuse of privileges and immunities
  • Assault (verbal and physical)
  • Breach of duties of independence, neutrality, and impartiality
  • Disciplinary measure or sanction
  • Discrimination (see category: discrimination)
  • Dismissal/separation
  • Facts (establishment of) / evidence
  • Failure to comply with private legal obligations
  • Failure to report misconduct
  • Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification
  • Gross negligence
  • Harassment (non-sexual)
  • Inappropriate or disruptive behaviour
  • Investigation (see category: Investigation)
  • Misuse of information and communication technology resources
  • Misuse of office
  • Misuse of official documents
  • Misuse of or failure to exercise reasonable care in relation to UN property or assets
  • Non-disciplinary/administrative measures
  • Procurement irregularities
  • Prohibited activity under ST/SGB/2004/15 (Use of Information and Communication Technology Resources and Data)
  • Proportionality of sanction
  • Retaliation
  • Sexual exploitation and abuse
  • Sexual harassment
  • Theft and misappropriation
  • Unauthorised outside activities and conflict of interest
  • Violation of local laws
  • Disciplinary matters/ misconduct
  • Discretionary authority
  • Bias/favouritism
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Sexual orientation
  • Access to justice
  • Delay
  • Investigation
  • Right to a hearing
  • Right to appeal
  • Right to comment/respond
  • Right to confront complainant
  • Receivability
  • Retaliation
  • Whistleblower
  • Admissibility
  • Anonymous statements
  • Audio-recordings
  • Compensation
  • Corroboration/hearsay
  • Credibility assessment
  • Evidence of harm
  • Medical evidence
  • Production of evidence
  • Sole testimony of complainant
  • global
  • Execution of order pending appeal
  • Interim measure
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Production de documents
  • Receivability
  • Suspension of action
  • Due process
  • Fact-finding investigation
  • Scope of investigation
  • Conflict of interest
  • Recusal
  • Judgment
  • Appeals of final judgments
  • Correction of Judgment
  • Execution of Judgment
  • Interpretation of Judgment
  • Revision of Judgment
  • Appeal
  • Interlocutory appeal
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • UNJSPB
  • Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance
  • Management Evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance),
  • Legal assistance
  • Legal representation
  • Self-representation
  • Delayed response
  • Extension of time
  • Time limit
  • N/A
  • Arbitrary or improper motive
  • Burden of proof
  • No expectancy of renewal
  • Reason(s)
  • Informal resolution (between parties)
  • Referral to ombudsman / mediation
  • Performance evaluation
  • Rebuttal
  • Indebtedness to a third party
  • Salary deduction
  • Spousal/child support
  • Private legal obligations
  • Waiver of immunity
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
  • Reasons
  • Discretion
  • Restructuring
  • Referral for accountability
  • Compensation (see also, Compensation)
  • Rescission
  • Specific performance
  • Post-adjustment
  • Salary scales
  • Abandonment of post
  • Constructive dismissal
  • Expiration of appointment (see also, Non-renewal)
  • Termination of appointment (see also, Termination of appointment)
  • Central Review Body
  • Eligibility
  • Full and fair consideration
  • Interview
  • Selection decision
  • Standard of proof
  • Written test
  • Disciplinary cases
  • Non-disciplinary
  • Disciplinary cases
  • Judicial review (general)
  • Non-renewal
  • Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
  • Termination of appointment
  • Irreparable damage
  • Mootness
  • Particular urgency
  • Prima facie unlawfulness
  • Receivability
  • Staff income tax liability
  • Abolition of position
  • Agreed termination
  • Disciplinary sanction
  • Health reasons
  • Summary dismissal
  • Unsatisfactory service
  • Annual leave
  • Compensation for injury, illness or death attributable to service (Appendix D to Staff Rules)
  • Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA)
  • Danger/hazard pay
  • Death benefit
  • Dependency benefits
  • Education grant
  • Education grant travel
  • Exceptional Voluntary Separation (EVS)
  • Health (medical) and/or dental insurance
  • Home leave
  • Maternity/paternity leave
  • Mobility/hardship allowance
  • Pension (see also, UNJSPF)
  • Personal Transitional Allowance (PTA)
  • Reimbursement of income tax
  • Relocation grant
  • Rental subsidy
  • Repatriation grant
  • Rest and Recuperation
  • Sabbatical
  • Salary
  • Separation travel
  • Sexual harassment
  • Sick leave
  • Special Education Grant
  • Special leave (with or without pay)
  • Special Post Allowance
  • Termination indemnities
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • Test-TermChild-3
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • Test-TermChild-3
  • Test-TermChild-33
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • ASHI (After-Service Health Insurance)
  • Disability
  • Marital/parental legal obligations (spousal/child support)
  • Pension Adjustment System
  • Prior contributory service/restoration of
  • Receivability (UNAT)
  • Standing Committee of UNJSPB (UN Joint Staff Pension Board)
  • Survivor’s benefits
  • UNSPC (UN Staff Pension Committee)
  • Validation of prior service
  • Withdrawal
  • Showing 141 - 150 of 4074

    The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

    The UNAT also denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

    The UNAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the UNDT. The UNAT observed that given...

    The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent’s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.

    Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant’s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

    The UNAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The UNAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The UNAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The UNAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The UNAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The UNAT found that the UNDT had made an error of fact...

    The Tribunal found unsubstantiated the alleged procecural and substantive irregularities in the lateral transfer of the Applicant to the position of CEO of GPH. The Applicant was well aware of both his lateral transfer and the business model of UNITAR, which is dependent on external funding. Also, the Applicant's letter of appointment clearly stated that his appointment was limited to availability of funds.

    Moreover, the Applicant argued that, instead of being placed on SWLOP until the end of his temporary appointment, his contract should have been terminated, pursuant to para. 9(c) of AC...

    The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred.  The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

    The Applicant failed to convince the Tribunal that the Administration raised in him a legitimate expectation of renewal of his FTA. An erroneously raised personnel action without a written contract does not constitute a ground for legitimate expectation of renewal.

    The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that the Staff Regulations and Rules must be applied uniformly and consistently to staff members. United Nations procedures exist to facilitate fair and transparent substantive decisions, and the failure to abide by required procedures is no mere “technicality”, but instead undermines...

    The UNAT found that the UNDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome. 

    In particular, the UNAT found that the UNDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General’s witnesses. The UNDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation’s findings. The UNAT found that the UNDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

    The Tribunal recalled that receivability is a condition sine qua non for judicial review.

    The Tribunal noted that by the time the Applicant filed his application, he had not been formally notified of the abolition of his post and the restructuring exercise was still ongoing. Up to the date of the judgment’s issuance, the situation remained the same as showed by a November 2023 email from UNDP to the Applicant asking him to confirm his interest in the position of Programme Assistant at the G-5 level. So far, the Applicant is still serving at the G-6 level in UNDP Pakistan.

    The Tribunal...

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

    The UNAT found that there was an error in the UNRWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the UNRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

    The UNAT was of the view that the UNRWA DT’s methodology of fixing...