Ãå±±½ûµØ

Regulation 1.1(f)

  • 13.1(b)(i)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Annex IV
  • Appendix D
  • Provisional Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 1
  • Regulation 1.1
  • Regulation 1.1(a)
  • Regulation 1.1(b)
  • Regulation 1.1(d)
  • Regulation 1.1(e)
  • Regulation 1.1(f)
  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 1.2(a)
  • Regulation 1.2(b)
  • Regulation 1.2(c)
  • Regulation 1.2(e)
  • Regulation 1.2(f)
  • Regulation 1.2(g)
  • Regulation 1.2(h)
  • Regulation 1.2(i)
  • Regulation 1.2(l)
  • Regulation 1.2(m)
  • Regulation 1.2(o)
  • Regulation 1.2(p)
  • Regulation 1.2(q)
  • Regulation 1.2(r)
  • Regulation 1.2(t)
  • Regulation 1.3
  • Regulation 1.3(a)
  • Regulation 10.1
  • Regulation 10.1(a)
  • Regulation 10.1(b)
  • Regulation 10.1a)
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1
  • Regulation 11.1(a)
  • Regulation 11.2
  • Regulation 11.2(a)
  • Regulation 11.2(b)
  • Regulation 11.4
  • Regulation 12.1
  • Regulation 2.1
  • Regulation 3
  • Regulation 3.1
  • Regulation 3.2
  • Regulation 3.2(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)(i)
  • Regulation 3.5
  • Regulation 4.1
  • Regulation 4.13
  • Regulation 4.13(c)
  • Regulation 4.14(b)
  • Regulation 4.2
  • Regulation 4.3
  • Regulation 4.4
  • Regulation 4.5
  • Regulation 4.5(b)
  • Regulation 4.5(c)
  • Regulation 4.5(d)
  • Regulation 4.7(c)
  • Regulation 5.2
  • Regulation 5.3
  • Regulation 6.1
  • Regulation 6.2
  • Regulation 8
  • Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 8.2
  • Regulation 9.1
  • Regulation 9.1(a)
  • Regulation 9.1(b)
  • Regulation 9.2
  • Regulation 9.3
  • Regulation 9.3(a)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(i)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(ii)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(v)
  • Regulation 9.3(b)
  • Regulation 9.3(c)
  • Regulation 9.4
  • Regulation 9.5
  • Regulation 9.6
  • Regulation 9.6(b)
  • Regulation 9.6(c)
  • Regulation 9.6(e)
  • Regulation 9.7
  • Regulation IV
  • Regulation X
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 12

    The UNAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.

    The UNAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The UNAT...

    UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

    UNAT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official’s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation’s...

    UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov’s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. UNAT held, however, that UNDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov’s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. UNAT held that Mr Dolgopolov’s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

    i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

    The Applicants argue that the facts were not established and that their actions did not amount to misconduct, since they were acting in self-defense or in defense of someone else. The Tribunal noted that video evidence, i.e. hotel security camera footage, constituted the only reliable evidence to establish the facts in the instant case and concluded that the Applicants, who were on an official mission at the material time, initiated the dispute and the physical altercation and did not act in self-defense when they assaulted a security guard. Accordingly, the UNDT found that the facts...

    The Applicant had argued that the written reprimand was a veiled disciplinary measure and as such there was no need to request a management evaluation. The Tribunal does not agree as it is for the Tribunal to make a determination as to whether the sanction was a veiled disciplinary measure or not. In view of the preceding, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Applicant’s claims contesting the managerial action of a written reprimand are not receivable as they were never submitted to a management evaluation as required under art. 8(1)(c) of the Statute of the Tribunal. As stipulated at para. 5...

    The Organization’s jurisdictional competence does not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ãå±±½ûµØstaff member by a staff member. It was within the province of the Respondent or his agents in this case to investigate the events leading up to the physical assault of Ms. Oduke. Having established that Ms. Oduke had been physically assaulted, the appropriate action for the Administration after that would have been for Ms. Oduke, as a non-staff member, to be advised or even assisted to file charges againstthe Applicant for assault in the appropriate local court. The conclusions of the local court...

    All the unresolved questions, the established facts and the Applicant’s failure to bring evidence in order to convince the Tribunal of the alleged extortion scheme against him support an inference that the Applicant had likely engaged in a sexual relationship with V01, a minor. Given all the surrounding circumstances of the charge, investigations and his own actions and explanations, the Applicant has not sufficiently discharged the burden upon him. The wording in paragraphs 3.2 (a) and (b) of ST/SGB/2003/13 is clear. Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct...

    The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant’s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS UNON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS UNON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...