É«¿âTV

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

UNAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. UNAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether UNDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, UNAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, UNDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, UNDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deeming the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...

UNAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting UNAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, UNAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), UNAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that UNDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, UNAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, UNAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in UNRWA DT to decide on remedy. UNAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2014/007. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of UNDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for UNDT, UNAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. UNAT held that UNDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that UNRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by UNRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, UNAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the UNRWA DT when it determined these...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. UNAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before UNDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether UNDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that it did. UNAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by UNDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to UNDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, UNAT held that...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. UNAT did not find that Mr Gehr¡¯s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. UNAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by UNRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, UNAT found that UNRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

The Secretary-General appealed UNDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. UNAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. UNAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. UNAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, UNAT held that UNDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. UNAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin UNDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...