51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. UNAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. UNAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and UNDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that UNDT erred in the level of award. UNAT held that the Secretary...

UNAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. UNAT held that there was no error in this regard. UNAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, UNRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. UNAT held that, in view of...

UNAT held that it could find no fault with the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence. UNAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the UNDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before UNDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of UNICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about UNICEF¡¯s failure to protect him. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the UNJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. UNAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the UNJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. UNAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a UNDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. UNAT held that ,for various reasons, UNDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of UN-Habitat. UNAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.