ÍćĹĽ˝ă˝ă

  • SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/172
  • ST/SGB/198
  • ST/SGB/1991/1
  • ST/SGB/1994/4
  • ST/SGB/1997/1
  • ST/SGB/1997/2
  • ST/SGB/1997/5
  • ST/SGB/1999/15
  • ST/SGB/1999/4
  • ST/SGB/1999/5
  • ST/SGB/2000/15
  • ST/SGB/2000/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/1
  • ST/SGB/2001/8
  • ST/SGB/2001/9
  • ST/SGB/2002/1
  • ST/SGB/2002/12
  • ST/SGB/2002/13
  • ST/SGB/2002/6
  • ST/SGB/2002/7
  • ST/SGB/2002/9
  • ST/SGB/2003/13
  • ST/SGB/2003/19
  • ST/SGB/2003/4
  • ST/SGB/2003/7
  • ST/SGB/2004/13
  • ST/SGB/2004/13/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2004/15
  • ST/SGB/2004/16
  • ST/SGB/2004/4
  • ST/SGB/2004/6
  • ST/SGB/2004/9
  • ST/SGB/2005/1
  • ST/SGB/2005/20
  • ST/SGB/2005/21
  • ST/SGB/2005/22
  • ST/SGB/2005/4
  • ST/SGB/2005/7
  • ST/SGB/2005/8
  • ST/SGB/2006/6
  • ST/SGB/2006/9
  • ST/SGB/2007/11
  • ST/SGB/2007/4
  • ST/SGB/2007/6
  • ST/SGB/2007/9
  • ST/SGB/2008/13
  • ST/SGB/2008/4
  • ST/SGB/2008/5
  • ST/SGB/2009/1
  • ST/SGB/2009/10
  • ST/SGB/2009/11
  • ST/SGB/2009/2
  • ST/SGB/2009/3
  • ST/SGB/2009/4
  • ST/SGB/2009/6
  • ST/SGB/2009/7
  • ST/SGB/2009/9
  • ST/SGB/2010/2
  • ST/SGB/2010/3
  • ST/SGB/2010/6
  • ST/SGB/2010/9
  • ST/SGB/2011/1
  • ST/SGB/2011/10
  • ST/SGB/2011/4
  • ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2011/7
  • ST/SGB/2011/9
  • ST/SGB/2012/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/1
  • ST/SGB/2013/3
  • ST/SGB/2013/4
  • ST/SGB/2014/1
  • ST/SGB/2014/2
  • ST/SGB/2014/3
  • ST/SGB/2015/1
  • ST/SGB/2015/3
  • ST/SGB/2016/1
  • ST/SGB/2016/7
  • ST/SGB/2016/9
  • ST/SGB/2017/1
  • ST/SGB/2017/2
  • ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1
  • ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.2
  • ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.2: Appendix B
  • ST/SGB/2019/10
  • ST/SGB/2019/2
  • ST/SGB/2019/3
  • ST/SGB/2019/8
  • ST/SGB/2023/1
  • ST/SGB/212
  • ST/SGB/230
  • ST/SGB/237
  • ST/SGB/253
  • ST/SGB/273
  • ST/SGB/274
  • ST/SGB/277
  • ST/SGB/280
  • ST/SGB/371
  • ST/SGB/413
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev. 7/Amend. 3
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/1/Rev.8
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev. l/Amend. 1
  • ST/SGB/Staff Rules/Appendix D/Rev.1
  • ST/SGB2003/13
  • ST/SGB2008/5
  • Showing 11 - 20 of 46

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

    UNAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-359. UNAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, UNAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. UNAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that resignation results in a break in service, which may, in turn, disqualify a staff member for consideration for a permanent appointment. UNAT held that if a staff member took issue with the requirement for a break in service, he or she should have challenged it at the time by requesting management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Hajdari never challenged his separation from service from UNMIK or, at any time after his arrival in New York, made any request to human resources to be reinstated at the time. UNAT held that Mr Hajdari’s...

    UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further UNAT found no merit in the Secretary-General’s argument that UNDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

    UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ademagic’s cross-appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. UNAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

    UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member’s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment” and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. UNAT also agreed with UNDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

    UNAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that UNAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

    UNAT held that the consideration of transferable skills as a criterion for future permanent appointment for staff members serving in a downsizing entity is a relevant factor and a legitimate consideration because the finite mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) meant that such staff members had no realistic career prospects in that entity. UNAT held that there was a rational basis for the denial of permanent appointments for the language staff (professional and general service) given the winding down of ICTY and the diminishing need for Bosnian, Croatian...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General raised the argument, inter alia, that Ms Lamb’s retroactive appointment was disrupted when she resigned and separated and, therefore, she had no contractual relationship with the Organisation obliging it to place her preferentially in vacant posts as someone holding a permanent appointment. UNAT held that UNDT concluded correctly that (1) Ms Lamb’s employment ended in mid-2013 by her own initiative and (2) there was nothing in the documentation relating to Ms Lamb’s resignation to support her assertion that it was...

    UNAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration’s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. UNAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. UNAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. UNAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...