Article 11

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 10
    2024-UNAT-1499, Philippe Schifferling

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

    The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

    The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

    UNDT/2010/206, Leboeuf et al.

    The main issue was whether time taken off during part of the workday should be counted towards the “scheduled workday” and actual work (“hours of work”) requirements when calculating compensatory time off or additional payment for overtime. UNDT found that time spent on annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off is not included in the actual work time, but is counted towards the scheduled workday. UNDT found that DGACM’s application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules was correct and that the Applicants failed to explain how the allegedly unlawful amendments to DGACM’s policy and...

    UNDT/2010/030, Abboud

    The application for deferral of judgment pending the outcome of the appeal is refused. The Respondent is to appoint an official of at least the rank of USG to consider afresh the complaints of the Applicant in respect of the conduct of the SG. The official is to launch an investigation, as appropriate, under staff rule 10.1 if it is reasonable to suspect that the SA acted in such a way as to justify the imposition of a disciplinary measure.

    Accountability referral: the USG’s conduct in dealing with the complaint of the Applicant and in giving evidence to the Tribunal is referred to the SG for...

    UNDT/2013/113, Skourikhine

    The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant’s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

    UNDT/2014/069, Hubble

    In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)—whose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post—was being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

    UNDT/2014/068, Farrimond

    In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)—whose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post—was being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

    UNDT/2014/049, Enan

    The Respondent was not asked to submit a reply to the application since it seemed clear to the Tribunal that the claim was manifestly not admissible. The UNDT found that the Applicant filed his application approximately seven months after the expiration of the deadline of 16 September 2013. The UNDT further found that the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”) failed to comply with the established deadlines for its response to the Applicant’s request for management evaluation. The belated letter from the MEU—which missed its deadline by more than seven months, going well beyond even the deadline...

    UNDT/2014/036, Zhao, Zhuang and Xie

    The Tribunal ruled that the selection procedure was flawed on grounds that: (a) first and foremost, the evaluations of the candidates as agreed to by the panel had been substantially modified prior to their transmission to the Director-General, UNOG, for the final decision, without the approval of the panel members; (b) the panel gave the Applicants misleading instructions during the interview that impacted negatively on their ratings; (c) the Director-General, UNOG, was not demonstrably provided with a documented record enabling him to make an informed selection decision; (d) no written...

    UNDT/2009/010, Campos

    The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant’s cases had been transferred to the UNDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. UNDT/2009/005.