51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute and therefore UNAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, UNAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

Decisions of UNSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The UNAT also rejected Mr...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The UNAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the UNRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/022.

After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The UNAT found that the UNDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...