É«¿âTV

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The UNAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ’s application was receivable before the UNDT. The UNAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The UNAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

L'UNAT a estimé que la réparation demandée dans la requête concernait une question qui n'avait pas été soulevée auparavant devant l'UNDT ou l'UNAT, à savoir le recouvrement d'un montant déjà payé à titre de dépense admissible selon une échelle mobile.

L'UNAT a estimé qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la portée du jugement antérieur, les termes de l'ordonnance étant clairs. L’UNAT a noté qu’il n’était pas nécessaire d’interpréter le jugement antérieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu’il n’existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la décision de...

The UNAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the UNDT or the UNAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The UNAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The UNAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the UNAT’s decision or the reasons for it.

The UNAT was of the view that there was also...