51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. UNAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. UNAT held that the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to another UNDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. UNAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of UNDT and do...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of UNDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, UNAT held that UNAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. UNAT held that UNDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that UNDT was unable to find any such evidence, UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. UNAT held that it was satisfied that UNDT¡¯s...