51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, UNAT held that success before UNDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to UNAT, as the unsuccessful party before UNDT, the...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before UNDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered whether UNDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. UNAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, UNDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that UNRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, UNAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the UNDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.