51ÁÔÆæ

UNRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. UNRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that UNRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. UNAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. UNAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-936 by Mr Diallo. UNAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to him. UNAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law, and followed binding UNAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before UNDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, UNAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, UNAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that UNAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. UNAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. UNAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with UNAT¡¯s direction in...

UNAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. UNAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that AJAB¡¯s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute or the Agreement between the UN and ICAO. UNAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. UNAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

UNAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to UNDT. UNAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and WMO dated 20 January 2020. UNAT...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

UNAT remanded the case to UNDT. UNAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to UNAT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

UNAT held that UNDT was correct not to conclude that the Appellant had initiated the physical fight. UNAT held that UNDT was entitled to conclude the evidence of a witness was not clear and convincing, given inconsistencies. UNAT held that UNDT determined correctly that a prior altercation could not provide propensity evidence to corroborate witnesses¡¯ accounts of the physical fight because the prior altercation was not investigated properly. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had been unduly influenced into signing the settlement agreement, but that UNDT...

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. UNAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with UNRWA was reasonable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring UNRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...

UNRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. UNRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. UNRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...

Procedural issues Respondent¡¯s challenge to the admissibility of certain documents Art. 18 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure contains the set of norms applicable to evidence. However, except for article 18.6, there is no specific provision in relation to admissibility of evidence based on recordings made without consent. The Tribunal finds that the transcript of a meeting the Applicant recorded is not admissible in the proceedings because it is tainted by the fact that one of the participants at the meeting was not aware that the meeting was being recorded. The Applicant cannot make use of...

The Administration duly complied with the requirements of ST/AI/2010/5. The negative rating and adverse comments in the Applicant¡¯s 2016-2017 ePAS would be read in light of the Rebuttal Report, which found the rating and comments to be without merit and designated a new rating of ¡°successfully meets expectations¡±. To this end, the rationale behind sec. 15.4 of ST/AI/2010/5 must be that any purported harm caused to the Applicant by the 2016-2017 ePAS would be mitigated by the corrective positive finding of the Rebuttal Panel. Tthe Applicant¡¯s challenge is not receivable because the revision of...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with UNHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that UNHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

By not seeking the Medical Director¡¯s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant¡¯s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...