Article 9.1(b)

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 2 of 2
    2025-UNAT-1573, Ghislain Robyn

    The UNAT held that the Fund reasonably chose a 30-year timeframe for its statistical analysis to determine whether there were “aberrant results” in terms of pensions received by beneficiaries who had chosen Slovakia as their country of residence. Similarly, the UNAT held that the conclusions drawn by the Fund from the analysis were properly reached, highlighting that the graph showed a wide disparity between resident beneficiaries who separated from 1993 to 2007 and those who separated afterwards, a disparity solely due to differences in separation dates.

    The UNAT found that the suspension...

    2025-UNAT-1523, Madhumita Hosali

    The UNAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

    The UNAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the UNAT found that her UN experience was used to disadvantage her. The UNAT also...