Article 14.1

  • 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 13
    115 (GVA/2024), SANAKA SAMARASINHA
    • Appealed

    The Tribunal recalls that in his pending application, the Applicant contests the 1 December 2023 decision to place him on ALWOP. The Tribunal assessed the lawfulness of this decision in its consideration of the Applicant’s 24 January 2024 application for suspension of action. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not prima facie unlawful. The Applicant argues that the decision-maker failed to consider all the evidence before him when deciding to extend his placement on ALWOP. This, however, could be relevant, at best, in an examination of the 20 August 2024 decision extending the...

    UNDT/2025/013, Martin Akerman

    The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

    In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

    102 (NY/2024), Stockholder

    The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the motion for interim measures concerned appointment, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

    Accordingly, the motion for interim measures during the proceedings was rejected.

    In any case, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented as the Applicant had been separated from UNHCR.

    066 (NY/2024), Scepanovic

    The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested the interim measure of “[s]uspension of [a]ction of the proposed separation of the Applicant” under art. 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the application concerned termination, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

    In any event, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented and that the Applicant had...

    2020-UNAT-998, Barud

    UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. UNAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by UNAT on her application for a suspension of action. UNAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before UNDT. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

    UNDT/2009/054, Nwuke

    The application was not receivable under article 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

    UNDT/2009/016, Tadonki

    The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization’s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...

    UNDT/2010/078, Miyazaki

    ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate “rebuttal” procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...