51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT noted that UNDT correctly stated that the former UN Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant¡¯s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. UNAT also noted that UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. UNAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the UNDT¡¯s decision and financial award. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision...

UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to UNDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the UNDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant¡¯s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. UNAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. UNAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. UNAT held that UNDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. UNAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, UNAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. UNAT allowed Ms Akyeampong¡¯s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de...

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. UNAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. UNAT denied the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-142. UNAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. UNAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. UNAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.