51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, UNAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. UNAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the UNAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. UNAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

UNAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of UNAT¡¯s competence. UNAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. UNAT found no error in UNDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT summary judgment.

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a UN staff member because he worked with UNOPS for over three years. UNAT concluded that UNDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, UNAT agreed with the UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.