Ãå±±½ûµØ

Article 9.2

  • 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 31 - 34 of 34

    2020-UNAT-1060, Abu Rabei

    Administrative decision Notification Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance) Temporal (ratione temporis)

    UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent’s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2020-UNAT-1074, Patsy Bello

    TEST -Rename- Benefits and entitlements-45 Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT) Subject matter (ratione materiae)

    UNAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. UNAT held that the IMO Secretary-General’s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. UNAT held there was no basis...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2020-UNAT-1020, Dibs

    Abuse of process before UNDT/UNAT Manifest abuse

    UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. UNAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered UNRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. UNAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2021-UNAT-1185, null UNRWA

    Disciplinary matters / misconduct Abuse of authority Disciplinary measure or sanction Dismissal/separation Facts (establishment of) / evidence Evidence Admissibility Referral for accountability

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. UNAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

    Full judgment
    Case digest