Ãå±±½ûµØ

Article 29(b)

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 2 of 2

    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

    2018-UNAT-860, Sirhan

    Compensation Burden of proof Pecuniary (material) damages Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance) Subject matter (ratione materiae) Remedies Compensation (see also, Compensation)

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the UNRWA DT and that...

    Full judgment
    Case digest