Home

Results 51 - 60 of 1,060,052 for publicity. Search took 2.334 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
On 13 July 2015, the HoM&FC directed that the production of the Litani magazine and all similar publications be moved from the J1 Branch into the Civil and Political Affairs/Public Information Office whereas national staff involved in its production would be put at the disposal of Human Resources (Application, Annex 6). 14. (...) Only the production of the Litani magazine was moved to the Public Information Office. The Applicant was retained in the LSU, where the post she encumbers is located. (...) The Public Information Office is an entity competent to deal with publications, it is expected to possess relevant expertise both in editing work and in public relations, and, as such, to be equipped to take full responsibility for the content and form of the issuances.
Language:English
Score: 315534.74 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2017-009.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Damages for a combination of moral injury, loss of professional reputation and career prospects, and public humiliation in the sum of USD100,000; d. (...) UNDT/2011/201 Page 10 of 13 Damages for a combination of moral injury, loss of professional reputation and career prospects, and public humiliation in the sum of USD100,000 18. (...) She was told in passing just before a public event started of the decision that would remove her existing responsibilities and place her in a position that was not defined or in place.
Language:English
Score: 314531.57 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2011-201.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The judgments of the former UN Administrative Tribunal are public documents in any event, and the Applicant cannot expect to have the written reasons behind a decision omitted from the record. 22. (...) It is a straightforward matter of interpretation and in the context of Judgment No. 1029, in which it was stated that “in light of the great publicity given to briefings by the Spokesman for the Secretary-General…” there can only be one logical conclusion: the former UN Administrative Tribunal expected that the Applicant would be absolved in precisely the same manner as he had been impeached—through a public announcement at a press “briefing”. 23. (...) Clearly at that time, the Respondent was of the view that publication of the Judgment through the ordinary channels was sufficient to execute paragraph XXII (3) of the Judgment.
Language:English
Score: 314531.57 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2011-202.pdf
Data Source: oaj
In 2006 and 2007 a number of serious allegations, to which considerable publicity was given, were made about the conduct of the applicant in his official capacity. (...) There was a series of investigations, audits and reviews, which appears to have been accompanied by widespread publicity extremely adverse to the applicant's reputation. 3. (...) As a secondary issue, he contends that it would also have been inappropriate for the selection committee to have been influenced by the adverse publicity itself or by the fact that he was subject to such publicity. 6.
Language:English
Score: 314516.6 - www.un.org/en/internalj...es/undt/orders/ny-2010-040.pdf
Data Source: oaj
She further requests that “her name be not made public in case of publication of a decision made by the Tribunal”, in order to “mitigate the impact of having taken the risk to speak up”, a concern which has been shown by the 2011 Global Staff Survey and “reiterated during the Meeting of the Staff Management Consultative Committee in Budapest this year”. 10. (...) As regards the Applicant’s request that “her name be not made public in case of publication of a decision”, the Tribunal is not convinced that the Applicant “displays a greater need than any litigant for confidentiality” (Servas Order No. 127 (UNAT/2013) and Servas 2013-UNAT-349, para. 25). The Applicant does not demonstrate that her case is of such a nature as to overcome the guiding principle of transparency in judicial proceedings and public rulings before this Tribunal. Conclusion 18.
Language:English
Score: 313616.9 - www.un.org/en/internalj...s/undt/orders/gva-2014-067.pdf
Data Source: oaj
At the material time and as of the date of publication of this judgement, he had been working since 2004 in the Distribution Section, Publications Services, Division of Conference Management, as a Meeting Services Assistant, at G-6 level. (...) On 23 June 2009, the monthly meeting of the Distribution Section was held; it was attended by 20 staff members, including the Chief of Publications Services, to which the Distribution Section belongs, the section chief, several unit chiefs within the section, and the Applicant. 4. (...) Other staff members under the authority of the Chief of Publications Services have also been harassed; (f) Only five persons, one quarter of those who attended the meeting, testified against him in the memorandum of 7 September 2009.
Language:English
Score: 313359.35 - www.un.org/en/internalj...t/judgments/undt-2011-087e.pdf
Data Source: oaj
As the Appeals Tribunal previously held:1 [O]ne of the purposes or goals of the new system for the administration of justice is to assure that the judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are published and made available to the Organization’s staff and the general public. Public dissemination of the appellate judgments helps to assure there is transparency in the operations of the Appeals Tribunal. It also means, sometimes fortunately and other times unfortunately, that the conduct of individuals who are identified in the published decisions, whether they are parties or not, becomes part of the public purview. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal has held that a request for confidentiality can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and in cases of utmost sensitivity.2 5.
Language:English
Score: 312254.79 - www.un.org/en/internalj...orders/order-unat-2015-227.pdf
Data Source: oaj
There is at present no public record of the Applicant’s refutation of the charges, of the Respondent’s retraction of them, and of the Applicant’s exoneration, which causes him ongoing harm. The Applicant seeks the Tribunal to order “rescission of the document in question as well as a public statement acknowledging and correcting the error”. (...) It is therefore unnecessary for the Respondent to issue a public apology regarding the errors in the report which have already been acknowledged and corrected in a published judgment of the Tribunal; b.
Language:English
Score: 312184.03 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2011-169.pdf
Data Source: oaj
UNDT/NBI/O/2010/012 Page 3 of 6 any and all references to him which affect his rights struck from the public record”. 5. Counsel further argues that the Tribunal is competent to grant the request for intervention. Pursuant to Article 2.4 of the Statute read in conjunction with Article 22 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure, the contractual rights of his client would be adversely affected if statements are made in public proceedings to which he is not a party and which refer to confidential charges of serious misconduct against him which remain unresolved. (...) The Applicant is requesting to be allowed to intervene in the present matter in order to ensure that all references to him made in the course of the proceedings in the matter relative to Applicant Liyanarachchige be struck from the public record inasmuch as the initial investigation concerning him is “personal, highly sensitive and confidential”. 12.
Language:English
Score: 311070.17 - www.un.org/en/internalj...s/undt/orders/nbi-2010-012.pdf
Data Source: oaj
As the Appeals Tribunal previously held:2 [O]ne of the purposes or goals of the new system for the administration of justice is to assure that the judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are published and made available to the Organization’s staff and the general public. Public dissemination of the appellate judgments helps to assure there is transparency in the operations of the Appeals Tribunal. It also means, sometimes fortunately and other times unfortunately, that the conduct of individuals who are identified in the published decisions, whether they are parties or not, becomes part of the public purview. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal has held that a request for confidentiality can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and in cases of utmost sensitivity.3 5.
Language:English
Score: 310902.86 - www.un.org/en/internalj...s/order-unat-2015-227Corr1.pdf
Data Source: oaj