The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri’s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...
The UNAT held that the Standing Committee of UNJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow’s benefit.
The UNAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the UNAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the UNAT Registry. Nonetheless, the UNAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.
The UNAT found that, at the time of the late participant’s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...
The UNAT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the UNAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The UNAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.
The UNAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the UNAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...
The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.
The UNAT rejected the staff member’s argument that his ex-wife’s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The UNAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...
The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member’s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.
The UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination of the former staff member’s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the UNRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...
The UNAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by UNRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The UNAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.
The UNAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant’s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency’s regulations and...
The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the UNAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.
The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency’s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The UNAT found that gender parity had not...
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.
The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.
The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...
