Home

Results 61 - 70 of 985,463 for publicity. Search took 6.615 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
As the Appeals Tribunal has 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 4.
Language:English
Score: 309145.95 - www.un.org/en/internalj...s/order-unat-2015-237Corr1.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The relevant “issues over security and safety had already been publicly discussed in various staff union meetings, raised officially by staff representatives and written about extensively in public staff federation reports as well as in the press prior to 17 May 2017”. 30. (...) Even if some of the relevant information was already in the public domain, the entire context and the analyses presented in the email exchanges would not have been disclosed, and the United Nations would indeed have had a very reasonable interest in maintaining this status quo. (...) The Applicant finally contends that “[n]o foreseeable risk was intentionally ignored”, and the Respondent “has not shown how reporting the loss of the envelope, even if it had been realized immediately, could have prevented its publication, which took place the very next day”.
Language:English
Score: 308621.14 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2020-209.pdf
Data Source: oaj
.: 2016-944. This verdict was publically announced on 28 October 2016 during the fall session of the UNAT. (...) Instead, the Applicant requests para. 13 be “modified to match” a post facto or subsequent occurrence—namely the publication of the reasoned judgment of the Appeals Tribunal, which was officially issued four days after the Order. (...) Furthermore, the Dispute Tribunal cannot now correct its order issued four days prior to Wilson 2016-UNAT-709, retroactively to the latter’s publication. Revision of Order No. 276 (NY/2016) 27.
Language:English
Score: 308478.56 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2017-020.pdf
Data Source: oaj
By memorandum dated 6 November 2002, ID/OIOS transmitted to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Graz, a series of documents “reflect[ing] the current status of evidence yet adduced in the ongoing investigation into allegations of breach of trust and corruption against [the Applicant]”, provided “following to previous discussion between [the Public Prosecutor’s office] and ID/OIOS”. (...) On 20 November 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, Graz, informed the Applicant that the criminal proceedings for charges of breach of trust brought against him on 27 November 2002 were closed. 10. (...) Article 16, paragraph 6, of the UNDT RoP (requiring that the oral proceedings shall be held in public) does not supersede article 16, paragraph 1, of the RoP.
Language:English
Score: 307987.13 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2010-023.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The Appellant also claims she has been unable to find another position by virtue of the publication of her name in the Judgment on Suspension. (...) The Statue of the UNDT provides for transparency in the work of the Dispute Tribunal and for the publication of judgments. Article 11 of the UNDT Statute provides that “the judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be published, while protecting personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of the Tribunal”. (...) We agree with the findings of the UNDT that the Judgment with the Appellant’s name as written has been in the public domain for a very long time and it is too late in the day to seek to redact the judgment; an order for redaction may prove fruitless as digital copies of the original judgment may continue to exist elsewhere.
Language:English
Score: 305769.4 - www.un.org/en/internalj...at/judgments/2015-UNAT-524.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The Appellant also claims she has been unable to find another position by virtue of the publication of her name in the Judgment on Suspension. (...) The Statute of the UNDT provides for transparency in the work of the Dispute Tribunal and for the publication of judgments. Article 11 of the UNDT Statute provides that “the judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be published, while protecting personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of the Tribunal”. (...) We agree with the findings of the UNDT that the Judgment with the Appellant’s name as written has been in the public domain for a very long time and it is too late in the day to seek to redact the judgment; an order for redaction may prove fruitless as digital copies of the original judgment may continue to exist elsewhere.
Language:English
Score: 305769.4 - www.un.org/en/internalj...judgments/2015-UNAT-524(c).pdf
Data Source: oaj
The decision to issue the reprimand was unlawful as it was vitiated by significant procedural violations. b. The public statements issued by UNICEF were neither timely nor adequate. (...) The applicant further submits a claim for the cost of “public exoneration”, estimated at USD30,000, in addition to the legal expenses. 4. (...) He was made aware also that the complainant had been informed of the results of the investigation. b. The public announcements issued by UNICEF were appropriate, accurate and timely in view of the very sensitive issues at hand.
Language:English
Score: 305581.79 - www.un.org/en/internalj...es/undt/orders/ny-2010-142.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Since his name has already publicly been released, he has now been assumed to be guilty of the allegations in the court of public opinion, creating an urgent need to correct the record. 17. It is urgent to correct the Respondent’s course of action in his attempt to please public opinion. Each day that passes further exacerbates the situation, while also denying him his salary to sustain himself and his family. 18. (...) Contrary to the Applicant’s contention, the Organization has not disclosed his name to the public in relation to the decision to place him on ALWOP.
Language:English
Score: 302720.3 - www.un.org/en/internalj...s/undt/orders/nbi-2020-139.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The decision to “remove responsibility for the Litani magazine from her to the UNFIL Public Information Office”. c. Rescission of the decision to reassign the Applicant from the J1 branch to the Office of the Chief of LSU. (...) To rescind the decision to “remove responsibility for the Litani magazine from her to the UNFIL Public Information Office”. c. To rescind the decision about removing the Applicant from the J1 branch to the Office of the Chief of LSU.
Language:English
Score: 301814.58 - www.un.org/en/internalj...gments/undt-2017-009_corr1.pdf
Data Source: oaj
It is common practice to make public the identities of litigants absent compelling countervailing considerations, such as a staff member who has been charged with sexual misconduct. (...) The foregoing provisions make clear that one 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. 19. Initially, it must be noted that Mr.
Language:English
Score: 301793.75 - www.un.org/en/internalj...at/judgments/2014-UNAT-456.pdf
Data Source: oaj