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 81 - 90 of 4074

    As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Wan's argument that he had been placed at a considerable disadvantage, directly impacting the outcome of the case, by the fact that he had been unrepresented before the ICAO Appeals Board.

    Turning to the merits of the case, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Appeals Board that on clear and convincing evidence two counts of misconduct had been proved to have been committed by Mr. Wan which justified the imposition of the sanction of dismissal. On the material presented by the Secretary-General to the President, the...

    The Applicant was under the obligation to act with a minimum level of probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness as required by the established facts (staff regulation 1.2(b)). Also, if it is found that an actual or possible conflict of interest arose out of these facts, the Applicant was obliged to disclose this conflict to his head of office in order to allow UNVMC to mitigate its impact and resolve it in accordance with its own best interests (staff regulation 1.2(m)). Finally, if the Applicant’s involvement in a matter could result in an actual or potential conflict of...

    The Tribunal concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration’s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant’s education grant for her son was unlawful.

    Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.

    The Tribunal...

    The UNAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former UNHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima’s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe. 

    The UNDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless “equivocal” (unclear/vague), “purely circumstantial” and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee). 

    With regard to...

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar’s performance evaluation an “administrative decision” with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the UNDT did not err in finding her application receivable.  

    Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar’s performance as “successfully meets performance expectations”, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

    The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

    The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

    The UNAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the UNRWA DT, nor any finding by the UNRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the UNRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained.  Moreover, if the UNAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the UNRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

    The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance.  The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard.  The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle.  He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...