51ÁÔÆæ

• The Respondent¡¯s motion for summary judgment was granted.
• The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal denied the Motion as irreceivable and rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for an extension of time to file his substantive application.

The Tribunal held:

a. The evidence demonstrated that the Applicant was not credible, particularly in his denial of misconduct during the incident in the Complainant¡¯s container.

b. The facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

c. The established facts about the Applicant¡¯s behaviour in the Complainant¡¯s container room that evening amounted to misconduct.

d. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was proportionate.

e. The Applicant's due process rights were not violated during the UNHCR Inspector General¡¯s Office ...

The UNAT found that the UNDT relied very significantly on its assessment of the former staff member¡¯s credibility in giving his oral evidence before it, disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.However, it held that this was not balanced against any similar assessment of the complainants¡¯ credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of the former staff member. The UNAT emphasized that there was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either the former staff member¡¯s counsel or the UNDT Judge, which was particularly significant given...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Prodanovic had met the criteria for a continuing appointment and that under the applicable legal framework, the award of a continuing appointment was not subject to the Secretary-General's discretion. The UNDT therefore correctly held that the decision not to grant her a continuing appointment was unlawful.

The Appeals Tribunal however found that the granting of a continuing appointment was not an "appointment" for the purpose of Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, and that the UNDT had erred in awarding in-lieu compensation.

The Appeals Tribunal...

Concerning the receivability of Ms. Janakiram¡¯s request for review, the UNATheld that only the 7 October 2024 decision rejecting her claim constituted a reviewable decision, as it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as a beneficiary. By contrast, it found that the Fund¡¯s 8 July 2010 letter was neither addressed to Ms. Janakiram nor concerned the same subject: it was addressed to the late participant and informed him that the Fund could not recognize his second marriage for the purpose of pension entitlements. The UNAT held that the letter therefore had no direct legal...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration¡¯s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.

Turning to Mr. Musambai¡¯s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member¡¯s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in law when it awarded in-lieu compensation in the amount of 6 months' net base salary without providing reasons to support said amount. The Appeals Tribunal found that had Mr. Isufi's appointment not been unlawfully not renewed and all other relevant considerations being equal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another one-year fixed-term appointment. Factoring in a variety of applicable contingencies, including his known history of consistent and repeated less-than-satisfactory performance, together with the other usual...

The UNAT held that, while there was a lack of adequate reasons for declining to open investigations into misconduct allegations raised by the former staff member, his reports concerned ordinary administrative matters that were of themselves likely not misconduct and certainly not serious misconduct.The UNAT further found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member did not provide evidence demonstrating ill motivation on the part of the alleged perpetrators. Accordingly, applying the ¡°no difference principle¡±, the UNAT found that the lack of adequate reasons for declining...