51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. UNAT found that in any case the UNDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the UNDT Judgment asking that UNAT reverse the UNDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. UNAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT found "questionable" the UNDT¡¯s finding that the investigation reports were not thorough or procedurally fair. UNAT was satisfied that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted was adequate for the purposes of a preliminary assessment. UNAT found that in view of the fact that Ms. Rehman was not given or entitled to the reports, the impugned order of the UNDT essentially required the OIAI to provide a written, reasoned decision setting out the findings and reasons for its assessment that the complaints should not be referred to an investigation. The...

Ms. Coleman appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. UNAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the UNDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. UNAT held that UNDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. UNAT held that UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. UNAT held that UNDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, UNAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, UNAT also found no error in the UNRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. UNAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

UNAT first explained that under the new reimbursement regime, an expense would be recoverable if: (i) it¡¯s for tuition; (ii) it is paid directly to the school; and (iii) it is certified by the school as being necessary for attendance. UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that because another UN entity would apply a rule more favorably to his case, that entity¡¯s interpretation should trump over the one given by the organization where he actually works. Second, UNAT disagreed with the Administration¡¯s approach that if an item in a category of fees was inadmissible, then the Administration...

UNAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. UNAT held that the appeal against the UNRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to UNRWA DT and UNRWA DT had not issued a judgment, UNAT...

UNAT disagreed and reversed the UNDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...