Ãå±±½ûµØ

ST/SGB/280

  • 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

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    Competence of decision-maker: Competence of the decision-maker is a cornerstone of the legality of an administrative decision. When the exercise by the Administration of its discretionary power is under judicial review, any lack of authority leads inevitably to the rescission of the contested decision.As this is an essential element for the legality of the contested decision, the authority of the decision-maker has to be assessed by the Tribunal on its own motion, regardless of the parties’ views at any stage of the administrative and judicial proceedings.Delegation of authority: Exclusions...

    Competence of decision-maker: Competence of the decision-maker is a cornerstone of the legality of an administrative decision. When the exercise by the Administration of its discretionary power is under judicial review, any lack of authority leads inevitably to the rescission of the contested decision.As this is an essential element for the legality of the contested decision, the authority of the decision-maker has to be assessed by the Tribunal on its own motion, regardless of the parties’ views at any stage of the administrative and judicial proceedings.Delegation of authority: Exclusions...

    Competence of decision-maker: Competence of the decision-maker is a cornerstone of the legality of an administrative decision. When the exercise by the Administration of its discretionary power is under judicial review, any lack of authority leads inevitably to the rescission of the contested decision.As this is an essential element for the legality of the contested decision, the authority of the decision-maker has to be assessed by the Tribunal on its own motion, regardless of the parties’ views at any stage of the administrative and judicial proceedings.Delegation of authority: Exclusions...