UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at UNODC. UNAT agreed with UNDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General’s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a “Message of the Day” was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...
Rule 4.13(b)
-
9.8(c)
1
-
Annex I
6
-
Annex II
1
-
Annex III
2
-
Appendix B
1
-
Appendix C
1
-
Appendix D
47
-
Article 3.9(g)
1
-
Article 4.17(b)
1
-
Chapter IV
1
-
Chapter X
3
-
Chapter XI
6
-
Disposition 9.6(c)(iii)
0
-
Provisional Rule 11.1
1
-
Rule 1
2
-
Rule 1.1
2
-
Rule 1.1(c)
2
-
Rule 1.1(j)
1
-
Rule 1.2
29
-
Rule 1.2(a)
12
-
Rule 1.2(b)
26
-
Rule 1.2(c)
28
-
Rule 1.2(d)
1
-
Rule 1.2(e)
21
-
Rule 1.2(f)
51
-
Rule 1.2(g)
11
-
Rule 1.2(h)
1
-
Rule 1.2(i)
4
-
Rule 1.2(j)
1
-
Rule 1.2(k)
4
-
Rule 1.2(p)
2
-
Rule 1.2(q)
11
-
Rule 1.2(r)
1
-
Rule 1.2(s)
1
-
Rule 1.2(t)
4
-
Rule 1.3
5
-
Rule 1.3(a)
1
-
Rule 1.5
3
-
Rule 1.5(a)
11
-
Rule 1.5(c)
1
-
Rule 1.6
0
-
Rule 1.7
4
-
Rule 1.9
1
-
Rule 10
2
-
Rule 10.1
28
-
Rule 10.1(a)
45
-
Rule 10.1(b)
3
-
Rule 10.1(c)
10
-
Rule 10.2
37
-
Rule 10.2(a)
26
-
Rule 10.2(a)(i)
8
-
Rule 10.2(a)(ii)
6
-
Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
13
-
Rule 10.2(a)(v)
4
-
Rule 10.2(a)(vii)
3
-
Rule 10.2(a)(viii)
36
-
Rule 10.2(b)
10
-
Rule 10.2(b)(i-iii)
1
-
Rule 10.2(b)(i)
3
-
Rule 10.2(b)(iii)
3
-
Rule 10.2(c)
4
-
Rule 10.2(vii)
1
-
Rule 10.3
23
-
Rule 10.3(a)
18
-
Rule 10.3(b)
41
-
Rule 10.3(c)
4
-
Rule 10.4
28
-
Rule 10.4(a)
4
-
Rule 10.5
4
-
Rule 101.1
2
-
Rule 101.2
2
-
Rule 101.2(b)
1
-
Rule 101.2(c)
1
-
Rule 101.2(d)
2
-
Rule 101.2(p)
1
-
Rule 101.3
6
-
Rule 101.3(a)
1
-
Rule 103.12
1
-
Rule 103.15
1
-
Rule 103.20(b)
1
-
Rule 104.11
1
-
Rule 104.12
4
-
Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
1
-
Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
5
-
Rule 104.12(c)
1
-
Rule 104.13
11
-
Rule 104.14
1
-
Rule 104.14(a)(ii)
1
-
Rule 104.15
1
-
Rule 104.15(b)(ii)
1
-
Rule 104.3
3
-
Rule 104.3(a)
1
-
Rule 104.3(b)
1
-
Rule 104.7
1
-
Rule 104.7(c)
1
-
Rule 104.8
1
-
Rule 105.1(c)
1
-
Rule 105.2
3
-
Rule 105.2(a)
2
-
Rule 105.3
1
-
Rule 107.20(i)
1
-
Rule 107.9
1
-
Rule 108.1
1
-
Rule 109.1(c)
5
-
Rule 109.1(c)(i)
1
-
Rule 109.3
2
-
Rule 109.4(d)
1
-
Rule 109.7
1
-
Rule 109.7(a)
1
-
Rule 11
4
-
Rule 11.1
6
-
Rule 11.1(a)
2
-
Rule 11.1(c)
3
-
Rule 11.2
171
-
Rule 11.2 (c)
36
-
Rule 11.2 (d)
6
-
Rule 11.2(a)
157
-
Rule 11.2(b)
63
-
Rule 11.2(c)
166
-
Rule 11.2(d)
14
-
Rule 11.3
4
-
Rule 11.3(b)(i)
2
-
Rule 11.3(c)
1
-
Rule 11.3(ii)
1
-
Rule 11.4
40
-
Rule 11.4(a)
26
-
Rule 11.4(b)
7
-
Rule 11.4(c)
3
-
Rule 11.4(d)
4
-
Rule 11.4(g)
2
-
Rule 11.5(d)
1
-
Rule 110.1
7
-
Rule 110.2
3
-
Rule 110.2(a)
1
-
Rule 110.3
6
-
Rule 110.4
7
-
Rule 110.4(b)
1
-
Rule 110.4(b)(i)
1
-
Rule 110.7(b)
1
-
Rule 110.7(d)
1
-
Rule 111.1
2
-
Rule 111.2.2
1
-
Rule 111.2(a)
9
-
Rule 111.2(a)(i)
2
-
Rule 111.2(f)
2
-
Rule 112.2(b)
2
-
Rule 112.3
1
-
Rule 12.3
6
-
Rule 12.3(b)
22
-
Rule 13.1
20
-
Rule 13.1(a)
4
-
Rule 13.1(c)
1
-
Rule 13.1(d)
17
-
Rule 13.1(e)
3
-
Rule 13.1(f)
1
-
Rule 13.11
1
-
Rule 13.2
1
-
Rule 13.4
5
-
Rule 14
1
-
Rule 14(b)(ii)
1
-
Rule 17
2
-
Rule 2.1
8
-
Rule 204.2
1
-
Rule 3.1
5
-
Rule 3.1(b)
1
-
Rule 3.10
10
-
Rule 3.10(a)
4
-
Rule 3.10(b)
6
-
Rule 3.11(a)
10
-
Rule 3.13
4
-
Rule 3.14
2
-
Rule 3.14(a)
1
-
Rule 3.15
3
-
Rule 3.15(ii)
1
-
Rule 3.16
3
-
Rule 3.17
4
-
Rule 3.17(c)
1
-
Rule 3.17(ii)
5
-
Rule 3.18
5
-
Rule 3.18(a)
1
-
Rule 3.18(b)
1
-
Rule 3.18(c)
4
-
Rule 3.18(c)(ii)
3
-
Rule 3.18(c)(iii)
2
-
Rule 3.18(e)
1
-
Rule 3.19
1
-
Rule 3.19(a)
2
-
Rule 3.19(g)
2
-
Rule 3.2(g)
0
-
Rule 3.3(a)
2
-
Rule 3.4
1
-
Rule 3.4(a)
2
-
Rule 3.4(e)
1
-
Rule 3.5
1
-
Rule 3.6
3
-
Rule 3.6(a)
2
-
Rule 3.6(a)(iv)
1
-
Rule 3.6(b)
1
-
Rule 3.6(d)
1
-
Rule 3.7
2
-
Rule 3.7(c)
1
-
Rule 3.9
10
-
Rule 3.9(b)
1
-
Rule 301
1
-
Rule 301.3(i)
1
-
Rule 304.4
2
-
Rule 309.3
1
-
Rule 309.4
1
-
Rule 4
1
-
Rule 4.1
8
-
Rule 4.12
15
-
Rule 4.12(a)
3
-
Rule 4.12(b)
1
-
Rule 4.12(c)
7
-
Rule 4.12(c)
0
-
Rule 4.13
20
-
Rule 4.13(a)
3
-
Rule 4.13(b)
3
-
Rule 4.13(c)
61
-
Rule 4.14
4
-
Rule 4.14 (b)
1
-
Rule 4.14(b)
7
-
Rule 4.15
5
-
Rule 4.16
5
-
Rule 4.16
0
-
Rule 4.16
0
-
Rule 4.16(b)(i)
1
-
Rule 4.16(b)(ii)
2
-
Rule 4.17
15
-
Rule 4.17(c)
1
-
Rule 4.18
10
-
Rule 4.18(a)
1
-
Rule 4.18(c)
1
-
Rule 4.19
1
-
Rule 4.2
4
-
Rule 4.3
5
-
Rule 4.4
3
-
Rule 4.4(a)
3
-
Rule 4.4(b)
3
-
Rule 4.5
6
-
Rule 4.5(a)
1
-
Rule 4.5(b)
1
-
Rule 4.5(c)
7
-
Rule 4.5(d)
1
-
Rule 4.6
1
-
Rule 4.7
6
-
Rule 4.7(a)
3
-
Rule 4.8
16
-
Rule 4.8(b)
1
-
Rule 4.9(a)
2
-
Rule 5.1(e)(ii)
5
-
Rule 5.2
7
-
Rule 5.2(c)
1
-
Rule 5.3
9
-
Rule 5.3(c)
1
-
Rule 5.3(e)
1
-
Rule 5.3(f)
7
-
Rule 5.3(ii)
1
-
Rule 6.1
2
-
Rule 6.2
21
-
Rule 6.2(a)
3
-
Rule 6.2(b)
1
-
Rule 6.2(b)(ii)
2
-
Rule 6.2(f)
4
-
Rule 6.2(g)
2
-
Rule 6.2(j)
2
-
Rule 6.2(k)
2
-
Rule 6.2(k)(iii)
2
-
Rule 6.29b)(i)
0
-
Rule 6.3(a)
3
-
Rule 6.4
1
-
Rule 6.5
5
-
Rule 6.6
5
-
Rule 7
1
-
Rule 7.1
7
-
Rule 7.1(a)
2
-
Rule 7.1(a)(iv)
1
-
Rule 7.1(b)
1
-
Rule 7.10
4
-
Rule 7.14
2
-
Rule 7.14(d)
1
-
Rule 7.15
5
-
Rule 7.15(h)
1
-
Rule 7.16
1
-
Rule 7.2
1
-
Rule 7.4
2
-
Rule 7.6
1
-
Rule 8.1
8
-
Rule 8.1(a)
1
-
Rule 8.1(f)
11
-
Rule 8.2
1
-
Rule 9
2
-
Rule 9.1
6
-
Rule 9.1(a)
1
-
Rule 9.11
9
-
Rule 9.11 (a) (vii)
0
-
Rule 9.12
4
-
Rule 9.2
2
-
Rule 9.2(a)
1
-
Rule 9.2(b)
1
-
Rule 9.2(c)
1
-
Rule 9.3
6
-
Rule 9.3(a)(i)
2
-
Rule 9.3(c)(i)
2
-
Rule 9.4
39
-
Rule 9.5
1
-
Rule 9.6
40
-
Rule 9.6
1
-
Rule 9.6 (c)(i)
1
-
Rule 9.6.(b)
1
-
Rule 9.6(a)
17
-
Rule 9.6(b)
14
-
Rule 9.6(c)
12
-
Rule 9.6(c)(i)
8
-
Rule 9.6(c)(ii)
7
-
Rule 9.6(c)(iii)
1
-
Rule 9.6(c)(v)
1
-
Rule 9.6(e)
53
-
Rule 9.6(f)
14
-
Rule 9.6(g)
3
-
Rule 9.6(h)
1
-
Rule 9.6(i)
1
-
Rule 9.7
12
-
Rule 9.7(a)
1
-
Rule 9.7(b)
1
-
Rule 9.7(d)
3
-
Rule 9.8
9
-
Rule 9.8(a)
4
-
Rule 9.9
7
The Tribunal will not order the Applicant’s reinstatement as were the original harm repaired, the Applicant’s appointment would already have ended. While the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that extensions of secondments beyond the five-year limit were possible under UNDP policy, the Tribunal was not convinced that it was probable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renewal would have been limited to the five-year restriction and compensation was warranted for that period, less the Applicant’s actual income. Account is taken of the context of the contractual breach i.e...
The failure to re-interview the subject of an investigation to confront him/her with additional gathered evidence constitutes a breach of his/her due process rights: the contested disciplinary decision is unlawful since it was taken based on the evidence and recommendations of the SIU/UNAMID investigation reports issued in January 2013 and December 2013, even though the SIU/UNAMID continued the investigation and gathered additional evidence from two witnesses in January 2015 and April 2015. The new evidence was never brought to the attention of the Applicant or of the decision-maker before...