51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. UNAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. UNAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the UNTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The UNRWA Commissioner-General appealed. UNAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Both parties appealed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. UNAT, however, disagreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. UNAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the UNDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of UNDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. UNAT dismissed the...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the UNCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. UNAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the UNAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. UNAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. UNAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. UNAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...