The Applicant’s claim was based on her assertion that she was on official travel status at United Nations expense when she was forced to have a stopover of 23 days in Khartoum. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled to DSA in accordance with staff rule 7.10. The Tribunal found, however, that there was no category under the applicable legal framwework of entitlement to DSA under which the Applicant’s time in Khartoum fell.
Rule 7.4
-
9.8(c)
1
-
Annex I
6
-
Annex II
1
-
Annex III
2
-
Appendix B
1
-
Appendix C
1
-
Appendix D
45
-
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
27
-
Rule 10.4(a)
3
-
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
168
-
Rule 11.2 (c)
36
-
Rule 11.2 (d)
6
-
Rule 11.2(a)
157
-
Rule 11.2(b)
63
-
Rule 11.2(c)
165
-
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
1
-
Rule 9.6
40
-
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
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Administrative decision
TEST -Rename- Benefits and entitlements-45
Home leave
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
Temporal (ratione temporis)
The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the UNDT Statute...