51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the UNRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the UNAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the UNAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The UNAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The UNAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the UNAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The UNAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The UNAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The UNAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the UNDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The UNAT also found that the prior UNAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The UNAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The UNAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The UNAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The UNAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the UNDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The UNAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The UNAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the UNAT to reject it. The UNAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The UNAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The UNAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The UNAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The UNAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the UNAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The UNAT further held that the deductions made for...

The UNAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the UNDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The UNAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the UNDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the UNAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a UNDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The UNAT found that the staff member sought to...

The UNAT noted that in its calculation of the reduction of the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit, the Pension Fund had determined the rate of the overall cost-of-living adjustment due to benefits in accordance with the movement in the US consumer price index since the date of the last adjustment to be 6.4 per cent. The UNAT observed that the Fund had then prorated the overall adjustment rate in proportion to the length of time the beneficiary¡¯s retirement benefit had been in payment and had determined that the inflationary adjustment due to him was 7/12 of 6.4 per cent, equal to 3.7 per cent...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.