UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.
Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.
Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...
UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.
UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.
UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.
UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...
UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. UNAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the UNDT Judge in her decision. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...
UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where UNDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. UNAT held that even though UNDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
