Article 8.2

  • 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
    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.

    2021-UNAT-1080, Mukeba

    UNAT held the staff member’s appeal of the UNDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the UNDT was erroneous. Additionally, UNAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the UNDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

    UNDT/2016/122, Nielsen

    The Dispute Tribunal rejected the application as irreceivable ratione materiae and ratione temporis, on the grounds that the applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the applicable deadline, and that the application was filed more than three years after receipt of the contested decision. Identification of the contested decision: As the Appeals Tribunal held in Massabni 2012-UNAT-238, it is part of the duties and of the inherent powers of a Judge to adequately interpret and comprehend the applications submitted by the parties, and to...

    UNDT/2019/158, Morales

    The Tribunal chose to proceed by way of a judgment on receivability as it is competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The Tribunal recalled that under art. 8.1(c) and 8.1(d)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute, a substantive application is receivable if the contested decision has been submitted for management evaluation and the application is filed within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response by management to his or her submission or within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no response to the request...