Ãå±±½ûµØ

Article 2.1(b)

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4

    2023-UNAT-1370, AAC

    Abuse of authority Discretionary authority Due process Evidence Admissibility Disciplinary matters / misconduct

    After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT’s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents.  The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2023-UNAT-1340, Mubashara Iram

    Dismissal/separation Facts (establishment of) / evidence Harassment (non-sexual) Proportionality of sanction Investigation Temporal (ratione temporis) Oral hearings Referral for accountability Disciplinary matters / misconduct Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT) Procedure (first instance and UNAT)

    The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The UNAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The UNAT found that the staff member’s due...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2015-UNAT-579, Achkar

    Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance) Subject matter (ratione materiae)

    UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2020-UNAT-1036, Mansour

    Evidence Evidence of harm Medical evidence

    UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant’s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. UNAT held that the termination of the Appellant’s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. UNAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant’s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

    Full judgment
    Case digest