Article 13.3

  • 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 - 5 of 5
    2023-UNAT-1389, Maryam H. Wathanafa

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member’s separation. The UNAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

    The UNAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

    2012-UNAT-255, Igunda

    UNAT considered an appeal against UNDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to UNDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, UNAT held that UNDT...

    2012-UNAT-230, Nwuke

    UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

    UNDT/2011/133, Dougherty

    The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant’s failure to choose the decision-maker’s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant’s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...