51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that neither Article 11 of the UNAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the UNDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable because UNDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. UNAT held that, while it confirmed the UNDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that UNDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. UNAT noted that it was well within the discretion of UNDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. UNAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. UNAT held there was no merit in...

UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as UNDT correctly concluded that applications to UNDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. UNAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the UNIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. UNAT held that it was correct to conclude, as UNDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. UNAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. UNAT held that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. UNAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before UNRWA DT, in light of which UNAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different UNRWA DT Judge, namely that UNRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no nexus between the emotional distress of preparing for the exam and the impugned decision as the preparation took place prior to the decision. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that the contradictory information received by Ms Mirkovic and the lack of responses from the Chief of the Examinations and Tests Section added to her stress and injury was not supported by the facts, noting that written confirmation of what the Chief had told her was not required in order for her to request management evaluation. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/034 and UNDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, UNAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that UNDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, UNAT upheld the finding of UNDT. UNAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. UNAT held that Ms Perelli was...

UNAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before UNRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, UNAT held that since the Appellant did...

UNAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-171. UNAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. UNAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the request was time-barred...