Article 8.1(d)(iv)

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 6 of 6
    2024-UNAT-1454, Ying Yu

    The UNAT found that the UNDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu’s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The UNAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu’s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the UNDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

    The UNAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the UNAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the UNAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

    2015-UNAT-590, Applicant

    UNAT had before it the Secretary-General’s appeal against judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and UNDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). UNAT held that there was no reason to upset the UNDT’s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. UNAT held, affirming UNDT’s finding, that the Applicant’s application was receivable by UNDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with UNICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, UNAT...

    2015-UNAT-520, Eng

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. UNAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

    2016-UNAT-644, Survo

    UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since UNDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

    UNDT/2012/159, Applicant

    Management evaluation: The Applicant requested management evaluation of each of the administrative decisions that he challenged before the Tribunal. Mediation: the Tribunal found that mediation was sought by the Respondent regarding the proposed disciplinary measure of demotion but the discussion between the Applicant and the ombudsman, went beyond the scope of the demotion. Mediation was sought within the deadline for filing the Application. The time for filling an Application starts from the date when mediation breaks down therefore the application was filed within the applicable time limits...

    UNDT/2013/004, Applicant

    The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the applicable time limits. The Tribunal found that in respect to decision 3, the Applicant requested management evaluation outside the prescribed time limit and therefore the Application with regard to decision 3 was not receivable. Mediation and Time-Limits: If a party to a dispute makes mediation overtures within the applicable time lines for filing an Application and the other party consents to participation in the mediation process then the time limit for filing an Application is suspended and begins to run when the mediation has...