51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. UNDT/2011/209 (on liability) and UNDT/2012/062 (on relief). UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the UN Staff Pension Committee (UNSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. UNAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that UNRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the UNDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, UNAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. UNAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

UNAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. UNAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the UNIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. UNAT held that it was correct to conclude, as UNDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

On the alleged procedural error of the UNDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, UNAT held that it was well within the competence of UNDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; UNAT dismissed this ground of appeal. UNAT held, affirming the finding of UNDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNDT failed to consider that UNHCR...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. UNAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether UNDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. UNAT noted that UNMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

On appeal, UNAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. UNAT further held that UNRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. UNAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. UNAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. UNAT held that UNDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed...