51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the UNDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The UNAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the UNDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the UNAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The UNAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the UNAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The UNAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, the UNAT held that her claim was...

The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT¡¯s finding that it was not clear that the issues raised by ABE were previously raised and resolved by a prior UNDT case concerning ABE. The UNAT considered it clear that the issues before the UNDT had previously been decided by the Dispute Tribunal. The issue of alleged negligence in making medical referrals was therefore res judicata and should not have been considered again by the UNDT in the case on appeal. The UNAT thus agreed with the conclusion of the UNDT that ABE¡¯s application was not receivable, but it came to this conclusion for different reasons.

The...

The UNAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the UNAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The UNAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the UNDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the UNDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new UNDT judgment in its entirety, including the UNDT¡¯s holding on the merits.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the UNDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The UNAT found that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the UNDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The UNAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the UNAT found that the UNRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the UNAT...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, UNAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the UNDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

The UNAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the UNDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The UNAT found that the UNDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...