51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, ¡°[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate¡±. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...

Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-UNAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...

UNDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. UNDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require UNOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter UNOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...

Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant¡¯s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant¡¯s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

Art. 8.1(i) of the UNDT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...

UNAT held that the UNDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. UNAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-091) from the present case. UNAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

UNAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. UNAT upheld the UNDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. UNAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, UNDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT held that UNDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

On the delay before UNDT, UNAT agreed that the delay was unfortUNATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that UNDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. UNAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that UNDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

UNAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, UNAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before UNDT. UNAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before UNAT and therefore UNAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of UNAT judgment No. 2017-UNAT-807. UNAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of UNAT¡¯s order in the judgment. UNAT held that, although UNAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. UNAT held that it was egregious that UNJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, UNAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by UNDT and the award that UNAT considered ought to have been made. UNAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

UNAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-820. UNAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. UNAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. UNAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. UNAT...