缅北禁地

Agreements, conventions, treaties (etc.)

  • Agreement between ITLOS and the UN
  • Agreement between the 缅北禁地and ICAO (December 2009/January 2010)
  • Agreement between the 缅北禁地and ITLOS
  • Agreement between the 缅北禁地and WMO (18 July 2017)
  • Agreement between the 缅北禁地and WMO (20 January 2020)
  • Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of the STL
  • Agreement between the UNJSPF and IOM (6 March 2006)
  • Agreement concluded between the 缅北禁地and ICAO (6 January 2010)
  • Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations concluded between the Swiss Federal Council and the Secretary General of the United Nations on 19 April 1946
  • American Convention on Human Rights of the Organization of American States
  • Convention on International Civil Aviation
  • Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN
  • Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
  • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol
  • European Convention on Human Rights
  • Headquarters Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government of Kenya
  • ICAO Agreement with the UN
  • ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
  • Inter-Organization Agreement between UNAMID and WFP
  • Inter-Organization Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances
  • Inter-Organization Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  • ISBA/ST/AI/2017/2
  • ISBA/ST/SGB/2020/1/amend 1
  • Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children
  • Special Agreement between the 缅北禁地and the ISA (11 February 2010)
  • Special Agreement between the 缅北禁地and UNRWA
  • Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service
  • United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
  • United Nations Convention on the rights of the child
  • Universal Declaration on Human Rights
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
  • WFP Office of Inspections and Investigations (OSDI) Quality Assurance Manual on Investigations
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 82

    The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The UNDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General.  Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

    The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

    It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the 缅北禁地and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

    What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

    With...

    Whether the Applicant is entitled to maternity leave under staff rule 6.3(a)

    While the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations is not a treaty, art. 31.1 of the VCLT sets forth generally accepted rules for interpreting an international document, which refers to interpretation according to the 鈥渙rdinary meaning鈥 of the terms 鈥渋n their context and in the light of its object and purpose鈥 (see, e.g., 缅北禁地Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 942, Merani (1999), para. VII; Avognon et al. UNDT/2020/151, para. 50; Andreeva et al. UNDT/2020/122, para. 64; Applicant UNDT/2021/165, para. 37).

    ...

    The UNAT held that the JAB made considerable internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.  It found that the JAB no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ISA Secretary-General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.

    The UNAT found that the plain reading of the facts left no doubt that: i) at the time when the contested decision was taken, there was no willingness of abandonment of post by the Appellant; ii) despite his poor mental health condition that was medically...

    As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute and therefore UNAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, UNAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no error in the JAB鈥檚 decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant鈥檚 failure to report to work and holding of...

    The UNAT held that the ISA JAB was correct in determining that Ms. Nguyen was: (1) not entitled to a repatriation grant from ISA; (2) not entitled to payment for unused accrued annual leave, which was transferred to her subsequent employer, UNRWA; (3) not entitled to reimbursement for certain school supply expenses; and (4) not entitled to the non-removal allowance, which was a discontinued benefit. However, the UNAT also held that the ISA JAB erred in denying Ms. Nguyen a relocation grant, and erred in denying her the travel expenses and travel time from Kingston, Jamaica to New York.  The...

    The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant鈥檚 evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

    Whether the Applicant had a right of return A Human Resources Factsheet, issued for Umoja users, provides that at the end of a loan period, the staff member concerned is expected to return to the Secretariat unless he/she resigns his/her Secretariat position to transfer to the receiving organization. Such practice has been clearly confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Iskandar (see Iskandar 2012-UNAT-248). Accordingly, while the Applicant鈥檚 lien on his former post may have been surrendered in accordance with the Administration鈥檚 decision of 9 September 2009, he retained a return right to OCHA...

    There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

    It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, UNOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

    A false allegation of sexual harassment against the Applicant and the sensitive information regarding V01鈥檚 medical history in the present case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting anonymity.

    The Administration erred in concluding that the Applicant making inappropriate comments between February and May 2018 constituted harassment of V01 and that the Applicant鈥檚 handling of V01鈥檚 complaint against Mr. N. constituted harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant鈥檚 due process rights were respected during the investigation and the disciplinary process.

    Although not constitutive...