Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

Rule 4.13(c)

  • 9.8(c)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Appendix B
  • Appendix C
  • Appendix D
  • Article 3.9(g)
  • Article 4.17(b)
  • Chapter IV
  • Chapter X
  • Chapter XI
  • Disposition 9.6(c)(iii)
  • Provisional Rule 11.1
  • Rule 1
  • Rule 1.1
  • Rule 1.1(c)
  • Rule 1.1(j)
  • Rule 1.2
  • Rule 1.2(a)
  • Rule 1.2(b)
  • Rule 1.2(c)
  • Rule 1.2(d)
  • Rule 1.2(e)
  • Rule 1.2(f)
  • Rule 1.2(g)
  • Rule 1.2(h)
  • Rule 1.2(i)
  • Rule 1.2(j)
  • Rule 1.2(k)
  • Rule 1.2(p)
  • Rule 1.2(q)
  • Rule 1.2(r)
  • Rule 1.2(s)
  • Rule 1.2(t)
  • Rule 1.3
  • Rule 1.3(a)
  • Rule 1.5
  • Rule 1.5(a)
  • Rule 1.5(c)
  • Rule 1.6
  • Rule 1.7
  • Rule 1.9
  • Rule 10
  • Rule 10.1
  • Rule 10.1(a)
  • Rule 10.1(b)
  • Rule 10.1(c)
  • Rule 10.2
  • Rule 10.2(a)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(v)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(vii)
  • Rule 10.2(a)(viii)
  • Rule 10.2(b)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(i-iii)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(i)
  • Rule 10.2(b)(iii)
  • Rule 10.2(c)
  • Rule 10.2(vii)
  • Rule 10.3
  • Rule 10.3(a)
  • Rule 10.3(b)
  • Rule 10.3(c)
  • Rule 10.4
  • Rule 10.4(a)
  • Rule 10.5
  • Rule 101.1
  • Rule 101.2
  • Rule 101.2(b)
  • Rule 101.2(c)
  • Rule 101.2(d)
  • Rule 101.2(p)
  • Rule 101.3
  • Rule 101.3(a)
  • Rule 103.12
  • Rule 103.15
  • Rule 103.20(b)
  • Rule 104.11
  • Rule 104.12
  • Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
  • Rule 104.12(c)
  • Rule 104.13
  • Rule 104.14
  • Rule 104.14(a)(ii)
  • Rule 104.15
  • Rule 104.15(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.3
  • Rule 104.3(a)
  • Rule 104.3(b)
  • Rule 104.7
  • Rule 104.7(c)
  • Rule 104.8
  • Rule 105.1(c)
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 105.2(a)
  • Rule 105.3
  • Rule 107.20(i)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 108.1
  • Rule 109.1(c)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(i)
  • Rule 109.3
  • Rule 109.4(d)
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(a)
  • Rule 11
  • Rule 11.1
  • Rule 11.1(a)
  • Rule 11.1(c)
  • Rule 11.2
  • Rule 11.2 (c)
  • Rule 11.2 (d)
  • Rule 11.2(a)
  • Rule 11.2(b)
  • Rule 11.2(c)
  • Rule 11.2(d)
  • Rule 11.3
  • Rule 11.3(b)(i)
  • Rule 11.3(c)
  • Rule 11.3(ii)
  • Rule 11.4
  • Rule 11.4(a)
  • Rule 11.4(b)
  • Rule 11.4(c)
  • Rule 11.4(d)
  • Rule 11.4(g)
  • Rule 11.5(d)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.2(a)
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 110.4
  • Rule 110.4(b)
  • Rule 110.4(b)(i)
  • Rule 110.7(b)
  • Rule 110.7(d)
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2.2
  • Rule 111.2(a)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 111.2(f)
  • Rule 112.2(b)
  • Rule 112.3
  • Rule 12.3
  • Rule 12.3(b)
  • Rule 13.1
  • Rule 13.1(a)
  • Rule 13.1(c)
  • Rule 13.1(d)
  • Rule 13.1(e)
  • Rule 13.1(f)
  • Rule 13.11
  • Rule 13.2
  • Rule 13.4
  • Rule 14
  • Rule 14(b)(ii)
  • Rule 17
  • Rule 2.1
  • Rule 204.2
  • Rule 3.1
  • Rule 3.1(b)
  • Rule 3.10
  • Rule 3.10(a)
  • Rule 3.10(b)
  • Rule 3.11(a)
  • Rule 3.13
  • Rule 3.14
  • Rule 3.14(a)
  • Rule 3.15
  • Rule 3.15(ii)
  • Rule 3.16
  • Rule 3.17
  • Rule 3.17(c)
  • Rule 3.17(ii)
  • Rule 3.18
  • Rule 3.18(a)
  • Rule 3.18(b)
  • Rule 3.18(c)
  • Rule 3.18(c)(ii)
  • Rule 3.18(c)(iii)
  • Rule 3.18(e)
  • Rule 3.19
  • Rule 3.19(a)
  • Rule 3.19(g)
  • Rule 3.2(g)
  • Rule 3.3(a)
  • Rule 3.4
  • Rule 3.4(a)
  • Rule 3.4(e)
  • Rule 3.5
  • Rule 3.6
  • Rule 3.6(a)
  • Rule 3.6(a)(iv)
  • Rule 3.6(b)
  • Rule 3.6(d)
  • Rule 3.7
  • Rule 3.7(c)
  • Rule 3.9
  • Rule 3.9(b)
  • Rule 301
  • Rule 301.3(i)
  • Rule 304.4
  • Rule 309.3
  • Rule 309.4
  • Rule 4
  • Rule 4.1
  • Rule 4.12
  • Rule 4.12(a)
  • Rule 4.12(b)
  • Rule 4.12(c)
  • Rule 4.12(c)
  • Rule 4.13
  • Rule 4.13(a)
  • Rule 4.13(b)
  • Rule 4.13(c)
  • Rule 4.14
  • Rule 4.14 (b)
  • Rule 4.14(b)
  • Rule 4.15
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16
  • Rule 4.16(b)(i)
  • Rule 4.16(b)(ii)
  • Rule 4.17
  • Rule 4.17(c)
  • Rule 4.18
  • Rule 4.18(a)
  • Rule 4.18(c)
  • Rule 4.19
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.3
  • Rule 4.4
  • Rule 4.4(a)
  • Rule 4.4(b)
  • Rule 4.5
  • Rule 4.5(a)
  • Rule 4.5(b)
  • Rule 4.5(c)
  • Rule 4.5(d)
  • Rule 4.6
  • Rule 4.7
  • Rule 4.7(a)
  • Rule 4.8
  • Rule 4.8(b)
  • Rule 4.9(a)
  • Rule 5.1(e)(ii)
  • Rule 5.2
  • Rule 5.2(c)
  • Rule 5.3
  • Rule 5.3(c)
  • Rule 5.3(e)
  • Rule 5.3(f)
  • Rule 5.3(ii)
  • Rule 6.1
  • Rule 6.2
  • Rule 6.2(a)
  • Rule 6.2(b)
  • Rule 6.2(b)(ii)
  • Rule 6.2(f)
  • Rule 6.2(g)
  • Rule 6.2(j)
  • Rule 6.2(k)
  • Rule 6.2(k)(iii)
  • Rule 6.29b)(i)
  • Rule 6.3(a)
  • Rule 6.4
  • Rule 6.5
  • Rule 6.6
  • Rule 7
  • Rule 7.1
  • Rule 7.1(a)
  • Rule 7.1(a)(iv)
  • Rule 7.1(b)
  • Rule 7.10
  • Rule 7.14
  • Rule 7.14(d)
  • Rule 7.15
  • Rule 7.15(h)
  • Rule 7.16
  • Rule 7.2
  • Rule 7.4
  • Rule 7.6
  • Rule 8.1
  • Rule 8.1(a)
  • Rule 8.1(f)
  • Rule 8.2
  • Rule 9
  • Rule 9.1
  • Rule 9.1(a)
  • Rule 9.11
  • Rule 9.11 (a) (vii)
  • Rule 9.12
  • Rule 9.2
  • Rule 9.2(a)
  • Rule 9.2(b)
  • Rule 9.2(c)
  • Rule 9.3
  • Rule 9.3(a)(i)
  • Rule 9.3(c)(i)
  • Rule 9.4
  • Rule 9.5
  • Rule 9.6
  • Rule 9.6
  • Rule 9.6 (c)(i)
  • Rule 9.6.(b)
  • Rule 9.6(a)
  • Rule 9.6(b)
  • Rule 9.6(c)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(i)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(ii)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(iii)
  • Rule 9.6(c)(v)
  • Rule 9.6(e)
  • Rule 9.6(f)
  • Rule 9.6(g)
  • Rule 9.6(h)
  • Rule 9.6(i)
  • Rule 9.7
  • Rule 9.7(a)
  • Rule 9.7(b)
  • Rule 9.7(d)
  • Rule 9.8
  • Rule 9.8(a)
  • Rule 9.9
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 61

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

    The UNAT was of the view that, as the UNDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

    The UNAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

    The record...

    The main issue for the Tribunal’s consideration in this case related to whether the abolishment of the Applicant’s post leading to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was lawful.

    The Tribunal defined the issues to be examined in the present case as follows:

    Whether the restructuring was genuine;
    The evidence on record showed that the restructuring was done within the framework of the Ăĺ±±˝űµŘSecretariat-wide transition of Enterprise Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”) services to the cloud. ESCAP made strategic changes to implement this new approach, leading to the...

    The Secretary-General appealed.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT erred in law and fact and reached a manifestly unreasonable decision by concluding that Mr. Hossain had proved on a balance of probabilities that the administrative decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment had been motivated by improper motives and he had been discriminated against. The reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr. Hossain’s fixed-term appointment, namely the abolition of his post in the context of a reorganization exercise, were valid reasons. 

    The UNAT further held that contrary to what Mr...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the UNDT should have rescinded the Administration’s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

    As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, UNAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

    Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal

    The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG did not constitute an express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing.

    There is no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. While the Applicant sought to rely on the CITO/ASG’s verbal statements in March...

    Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal

    The general verbal statement made by the CITO/ASG in March 2022 could not have constituted an express promise to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. It lacked the essential elements of a proper and concrete offer of renewal, such as the duration of the extension and the name of the appointee. The jurisprudence further requires a promise to renew a fixed-term appointment to be in writing (see Kellie, para. 44). Contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion, the verbal statement was not sufficient to support a firm commitment or an entitlement to...

    Mr. Pierre filed an appeal.  UNAT found no error in the Dispute Tribunal's conclusion that the application was not receivable.  The contested decision did not have legal consequences adversely affecting the terms and conditions of Mr. Pierre’s appointment and therefore, there was no appealable administrative decision. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT correctly held that since Mr. Pierre had no expectancy of renewal of his fixed-term appointment, the short-term renewals were considered prima facie in his favour.  UNAT also found that Mr. Pierre had not provided sufficient evidence that the...

    Procedural issue: anonymity In the present case, the sensitive information regarding the Applicant’s medical history and his mental health status constitutes exceptional circumstances that warrant granting anonymity. Therefore, the Applicant’s name is anonymized in the present judgment. Scope of judicial review It is within the Tribunal’s competence to hold a hearing or look at facts that were allegedly not before the decision-maker to determine whether relevant factors have been ignored. This is fundamentally different from a de novo investigation into the facts underlying the disciplinary...

    The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...