51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...

UNAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the UNDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the UNDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the UNDT.

UNAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. UNAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the UNDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the UNDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The UNDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between UNDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, UNAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, UNAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the UNDT made no ruling on this...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.

UNAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the UNDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of UNICEF. The UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The UNDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The UNDT decided not to refer the ED of UNICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

La premi¨¨re conclusion du Tribunal d'appel est que le Tribunal a eu raison de consid¨¦rer que l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement n'est pas en conflit avec l'article 3.19(g) du R¨¨glement du personnel et que, par cons¨¦quent, les deux ensembles de dispositions doivent ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦s ensemble de mani¨¨re coh¨¦rente. .

Nous jugeons ¨¦galement correct le raisonnement du TDNU selon lequel l'application de l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement du PNUD n'est pas limit¨¦e aux membres du personnel du PNUD, car elle cherche ¨¤ rapprocher les paiements effectu¨¦s aux membres du personnel...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the UNDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the UNDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the UNDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to UNDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a UNDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

The UNAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the UNRWA DT did he point out any...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against UNRWA Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The UNRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and UNAT found no reason to differ from them. UNAT shared the UNRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The UNAT first concluded that the UNDT erred by failing to specify whether the alleged misconduct of sexual exploitation had been established to the required evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. Second, the UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in concluding that the victim was a vulnerable person, that Mr. Stefan was aware of her vulnerability, and that he sexually exploited her vulnerability. The UNAT held that the UNDT erred when it made this finding without any independent or medical evidence, and that the UNDT had relied on its own Internet research regarding various...

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The UNDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of ¡°relevant work experience¡± in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications. By doing so, the UNDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The UNAT held that this was a policy...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The UNAT found that the facts suggest that the participant¡¯s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant¡¯s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

The UNAT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the UNRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant¡¯s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...

En ce qui concerne l'appel par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de la conclusion de l'UNDT que l'inconduite en vertu du chef 2 n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablie, l'UNAT a jug¨¦ que l'UNDT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en fait, ce qui a entra?n¨¦ une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable. Les messages envoy¨¦s par le membre du personnel ¨¤ son voisin ¨¦taient des suggestions et des d¨¦clarations ¨¤ une personne qui n'¨¦tait pas t¨¦moin ¨¤ l'¨¦poque. Le membre du personnel n'¨¦tait pas sous et ne soup?onnait pas qu'il serait probablement sous une enqu¨ºte au moment o¨´ il a envoy¨¦ les messages.

Le voisin les a trouv¨¦ appropri¨¦s et ne se...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT exer?ait son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire pour poursuivre le jugement sommaire l¨¦galement et de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT avait commis une erreur lorsqu'elle a d¨¦cid¨¦ que la demande de l'appelant n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione Materiae. UNAT a not¨¦ que l'affaire ¨¦tait presque identique ¨¤ Oussama Abed & Eman Abed c. Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'Agence des Nations Unies pour Relief and Works pour les r¨¦fugi¨¦s palestiniens du Proche-Orient (jugement n ¡ã 2022-UNAT-1297). Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ ce jugement, Unat a jug¨¦ que le placement d'une lettre rappelant ¨¤ l...

L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que l'attribution pour compensation au lieu de l'annulation comprenait le co?t suppl¨¦mentaire encouru par le membre du personnel dans le maintien de deux m¨¦nages ¨¤ la suite de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que, compte tenu de la demande d'interpr¨¦tation, il ¨¦tait raisonnable que l'administration attende l'interpr¨¦tation du Tribunal d'appel. Cependant, le secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral est condamn¨¦ ¨¤ ex¨¦cuter pleinement le jugement initial et ¨¤ payer le membre du personnel de 450 USD dans les 30 jours civils ¨¤ compter de la d¨¦livrance du jugement actuel. L'UNAT a not¨¦ que, ¨¦tant...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT avait correctement trouv¨¦ la demande de la demande de Mme Raschdorf en ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision non renouvelable et la d¨¦cision de l¡¯ABCC, la d¨¦cision de Mme Raschdorf ¨¤ demander l¡¯¨¦valuation de la gestion. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que contrairement ¨¤ l'affirmation de Mme Raschdorf, la d¨¦cision non renouvelable n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ prise apr¨¨s les conseils d'un organe technique. En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision de l'ABCC quant ¨¤ savoir si la r¨¦clamation a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦rang¨¦e, l'UNAT a constat¨¦ que cette d¨¦cision n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e sur une consid¨¦ration d'une...

L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que le Tribunal des diff¨¦rends a raisonn¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre qu'en vertu du cadre disciplinaire de l'UNFPA, l'¨¦valuation des faits d'inconduite n'est pas exclusive ¨¤ l'OAIS, mais que le directeur du D¨¦partement des ressources humaines (directeur / DHR) doit ¨¦galement analyser les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve, et une telle analyse pourrait conduire le DHR ¨¤ une conclusion diff¨¦rente de celle de l'OAIS. En cons¨¦quence, dans ce cas, l'UNAT a constat¨¦ que l'administration de l'UNFPA avait l'autorit¨¦ ou le locus standi pour proc¨¦der ¨¤ un processus disciplinaire m¨ºme en l'absence d'une conclusion d...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The UNAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the UNAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...