Article 26

  • 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 - 7 of 7
    UNDT/2023/107, Applicant

    The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

    Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be “stacked”.

    Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...

    UNDT/2009/014, Parker

    UNDT found that in as much as the Applicant’s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant’s request but on the Administration’s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, UNDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant’s...

    UNDT/2009/013, Parker

    UNDT rejected the UNHCR’s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, UNDT found that the Director of UNHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. UNDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. UNDT...

    UNDT/2020/057, Applicant

    The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...

    UNDT/2020/057/Corr.1, Applicant

    The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section. The Ethics...

    UNDT/2021/065, Mdoe

    The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...