ST/SGB/2007/6

  • SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/172
  • ST/SGB/198
  • ST/SGB/1991/1
  • ST/SGB/1994/4
  • ST/SGB/1997/1
  • ST/SGB/1997/2
  • ST/SGB/1997/5
  • ST/SGB/1999/15
  • ST/SGB/1999/4
  • ST/SGB/1999/5
  • ST/SGB/2000/15
  • ST/SGB/2000/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/1
  • ST/SGB/2001/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/9
  • ST/SGB/2002/1
  • ST/SGB/2002/12
  • ST/SGB/2002/13
  • ST/SGB/2002/6
  • ST/SGB/2002/7
  • ST/SGB/2002/9
  • ST/SGB/2003/13
  • ST/SGB/2003/19
  • ST/SGB/2003/4
  • ST/SGB/2003/7
  • ST/SGB/2004/13
  • ST/SGB/2004/13/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2004/15
  • ST/SGB/2004/16
  • ST/SGB/2004/4
  • ST/SGB/2004/6
  • ST/SGB/2004/9
  • ST/SGB/2005/1
  • ST/SGB/2005/20
  • ST/SGB/2005/21
  • ST/SGB/2005/22
  • ST/SGB/2005/4
  • ST/SGB/2005/7
  • ST/SGB/2005/8
  • ST/SGB/2006/6
  • ST/SGB/2006/9
  • ST/SGB/2007/11
  • ST/SGB/2007/4
  • ST/SGB/2007/6
  • ST/SGB/2007/9
  • ST/SGB/2008/13
  • ST/SGB/2008/4
  • ST/SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/2009/1
  • ST/SGB/2009/10
  • ST/SGB/2009/11
  • ST/SGB/2009/2
  • ST/SGB/2009/3
  • ST/SGB/2009/4
  • ST/SGB/2009/6
  • ST/SGB/2009/7
  • ST/SGB/2009/9
  • ST/SGB/2010/2
  • ST/SGB/2010/3
  • ST/SGB/2010/6
  • ST/SGB/2010/9
  • ST/SGB/2011/1
  • ST/SGB/2011/10
  • ST/SGB/2011/4
  • ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2011/7
  • ST/SGB/2011/9
  • ST/SGB/2012/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/3
  • ST/SGB/2013/4
  • ST/SGB/2014/1
  • ST/SGB/2014/2
  • ST/SGB/2014/3
  • ST/SGB/2015/1
  • ST/SGB/2015/3
  • ST/SGB/2016/1
  • ST/SGB/2016/7
  • ST/SGB/2016/9
  • ST/SGB/2017/1
  • ST/SGB/2017/2
  • ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.2: Appendix B
  • ST/SGB/2019/10
  • ST/SGB/2019/2
  • ST/SGB/2019/3
  • ST/SGB/2019/8
  • ST/SGB/212
  • ST/SGB/230
  • ST/SGB/237
  • ST/SGB/253
  • ST/SGB/273
  • ST/SGB/274
  • ST/SGB/277
  • ST/SGB/280
  • ST/SGB/371
  • ST/SGB/413
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev. 7/Amend. 3
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev.8
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev. l/Amend. 1
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB2003/13
  • ST/SGB2008/5
  • Showing 1 - 5 of 5

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the UNDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.  

    The UNAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information.  The UNAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

    The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

    Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established  In determining whether the standard of proof has been met, the Tribunal “is not allowed to investigate facts on which the disciplinary sanction has not been based and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Secretary General”. Thus, it will “only examine whether there is sufficient evidence for the facts on which the disciplinary sanction was based” (see Nadasan 2019-UNAT-918, para. 40). As such, the Tribunal considers to be irrelevant the Applicant’s submission that the facts on which the...

    Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

    Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the UN, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...