Âé¶ą´«Ă˝

OAJ Categories

  • Alternative appointment
  • Priority consideration
  • Termination
  • Abusive conduct
  • Contempt
  • Costs
  • Manifest abuse
  • Additional evidence
  • Additional pleadings
  • Definition
  • Implied administrative decision
  • Notification
  • Reasons
  • Administrative decision
  • Appointment of Limited Duration
  • Continuing appointment
  • Fixed-term appointment
  • Permanent appointment
  • Probationary appointment
  • Temporary appointment
  • Benefits and entitlements
  • Benefits and entitlements
  • Disciplinary
  • Non-disciplinary
  • newcategoryTest
  • oldcategorytest
  • Classification (post)
  • Aggravating/mitigating factors
  • Burden of proof
  • Duty of mitigation
  • Evidence of harm
  • Exemplary/punitive damages (prohibition against award of)
  • In-lieu compensation
  • Loss of chance
  • Maximum amount / exceptional circumstances
  • Non-pecuniary (moral) damages
  • Pecuniary (material) damages
  • Conduct of counsel
  • Abuse of authority
  • Abuse of privileges and immunities
  • Assault (verbal and physical)
  • Breach of duties of independence, neutrality, and impartiality
  • Disciplinary measure or sanction
  • Discrimination (see category: discrimination)
  • Dismissal/separation
  • Facts (establishment of) / evidence
  • Failure to comply with private legal obligations
  • Failure to report misconduct
  • Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification
  • Gross negligence
  • Harassment (non-sexual)
  • Inappropriate or disruptive behaviour
  • Investigation (see category: Investigation)
  • Misuse of information and communication technology resources
  • Misuse of office
  • Misuse of official documents
  • Misuse of or failure to exercise reasonable care in relation to UN property or assets
  • Non-disciplinary/administrative measures
  • Procurement irregularities
  • Prohibited activity under ST/SGB/2004/15 (Use of Information and Communication Technology Resources and Data)
  • Proportionality of sanction
  • Retaliation
  • Sexual exploitation and abuse
  • Sexual harassment
  • Theft and misappropriation
  • Unauthorised outside activities and conflict of interest
  • Violation of local laws
  • Disciplinary matters/ misconduct
  • Discretionary authority
  • Bias/favouritism
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Sexual orientation
  • Access to justice
  • Delay
  • Investigation
  • Right to a hearing
  • Right to appeal
  • Right to comment/respond
  • Right to confront complainant
  • Receivability
  • Retaliation
  • Whistleblower
  • Admissibility
  • Anonymous statements
  • Audio-recordings
  • Compensation
  • Corroboration/hearsay
  • Credibility assessment
  • Evidence of harm
  • Medical evidence
  • Production of evidence
  • Sole testimony of complainant
  • global
  • Interim measure denied
  • Interim measure granted
  • Execution of order pending appeal
  • Interim measure
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Production de documents
  • Receivability
  • Suspension of action
  • Due process
  • Fact-finding investigation
  • Scope of investigation
  • Conflict of interest
  • Recusal
  • Judgment
  • Appeals of final judgments
  • Correction of Judgment
  • Execution of Judgment
  • Interpretation of Judgment
  • Revision of Judgment
  • Appeal
  • Interlocutory appeal
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • UNJSPB
  • Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance
  • Management Evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance),
  • Legal assistance
  • Legal representation
  • Self-representation
  • Delayed response
  • Extension of time
  • Time limit
  • N/A
  • Arbitrary or improper motive
  • Burden of proof
  • No expectancy of renewal
  • Reason(s)
  • Informal resolution (between parties)
  • Referral to ombudsman / mediation
  • Other motion granted
  • Parental Leave
  • Performance evaluation
  • Rebuttal
  • Indebtedness to a third party
  • Salary deduction
  • Spousal/child support
  • Private legal obligations
  • Waiver of immunity
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
  • Reasons
  • Discretion
  • Restructuring
  • Referral for accountability
  • Compensation (see also, Compensation)
  • Rescission
  • Specific performance
  • Post-adjustment
  • Salary scales
  • Abandonment of post
  • Constructive dismissal
  • Expiration of appointment (see also, Non-renewal)
  • Termination of appointment (see also, Termination of appointment)
  • Central Review Body
  • Eligibility
  • Full and fair consideration
  • Interview
  • Selection decision
  • Standard of proof
  • Written test
  • Disciplinary cases
  • Non-disciplinary
  • Disciplinary cases
  • Judicial review (general)
  • Non-renewal
  • Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
  • Termination of appointment
  • Irreparable damage
  • Mootness
  • Particular urgency
  • Prima facie unlawfulness
  • Receivability
  • Staff income tax liability
  • Abolition of position
  • Agreed termination
  • Disciplinary sanction
  • Health reasons
  • Summary dismissal
  • Unsatisfactory service
  • Test - Sub App
  • Test - sub comprensation
  • Annual leave
  • Compensation for injury, illness or death attributable to service (Appendix D to Staff Rules)
  • Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA)
  • Danger/hazard pay
  • Death benefit
  • Dependency benefits
  • Education grant
  • Education grant travel
  • Exceptional Voluntary Separation (EVS)
  • Health (medical) and/or dental insurance
  • Home leave
  • Maternity/paternity leave
  • Mobility/hardship allowance
  • Pension (see also, UNJSPF)
  • Personal Transitional Allowance (PTA)
  • Reimbursement of income tax
  • Relocation grant
  • Rental subsidy
  • Repatriation grant
  • Rest and Recuperation
  • Sabbatical
  • Salary
  • Separation travel
  • Sexual harassment
  • Sick leave
  • Special Education Grant
  • Special leave (with or without pay)
  • Special Post Allowance
  • Termination indemnities
  • Test-conduct of judges
  • Test- DONTUSE- Subcategories
  • Test- DONTUSE- Subcategories -1
  • Test- Sub Interim Measure
  • Test- Sub other motions
  • Test-cat2
  • Test-sub category2
  • Test-order cate2
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • Test-TermChild-3
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-33
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • Test-TermChild-3
  • Test-TermChild-33
  • Test-TermChild-1
  • Test-TermChild-2
  • Transfer
  • ASHI (After-Service Health Insurance)
  • Disability
  • Marital/parental legal obligations (spousal/child support)
  • Pension Adjustment System
  • Prior contributory service/restoration of
  • Receivability (UNAT)
  • Standing Committee of UNJSPB (UN Joint Staff Pension Board)
  • Survivor’s benefits
  • UNSPC (UN Staff Pension Committee)
  • Validation of prior service
  • Withdrawal
  • Showing 11 - 20 of 4170

    Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

    Receivability

    The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

    First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with UNDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

    Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui’s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the UNDT’s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an “administrative decision” and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

    The UNAT noted that the Administration had initiated a preliminary investigation into the staff member’s conduct with regard to the ostensible theft of cash from the office safe, reached agreements with him regarding repayment, and then sought initiation of criminal proceedings by filing a criminal complaint and delivering him to the local police. The UNAT found that because the underlying facts of the case involved his conduct as a United Nations staff member towards his employer, the UNDT should have been competent to review his application on the merits, had it been timely filed.

    The UNAT...

    As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants’ counsel in person.

    The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants’ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to UNOPS staff members were not made by a UNOPS official with...

    The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member’s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

    The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

    The UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination of the former staff member’s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the UNRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

    The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

    The UNAT rejected the staff member’s argument that his ex-wife’s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The UNAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

    A staff member’s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-UNAT-1030, para. 34).

    The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by UNICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

    Accordin...

    The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months’ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months’ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

    The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...