51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. UNAT held that the UNDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. UNAT admitted on appeal the...

UNAT held that the facts upon which UNRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of UNRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. UNAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. UNAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...

Contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

The matter remanded to the Joint Appeals Board of ITLOS to be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process

UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.

The Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure by relying on ex parte evidence in the form of three doctors¡¯ notes, of which the Secretary-General received the translated copies only two days before the issuance of the impugned Judgment, in violation of audi alteram partem. The Dispute Tribunal failed to consider the ¡°checks and balances to ensure transparency¡± instituted in established procedures as outlined in the Guidelines and the ability of the Applicant to raise timely concerns about potential bias after the interview. As there is no obligation to provide the names of the...

The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that Mustafa et al. had been informed of the impugned decision to deny a request to set their grade level at Grade 14 on 19 March 2018. Neither did it err when it found that the applications were not receivable, because the requests for decision review were submitted after the deadline.

UNAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the UNAT Judgment.

The UNDT erred in fact in concluding that the ABCC had solely and exclusively rested upon the MSD¡¯s medical report, and the UNDT exceeded its competence in stating that the time limit under Article 12 of Appendix D would only start to run from the moment when the psychological symptoms were so severe that the patient acknowledged that his/her syndrome no longer allowed him/her to fulfill his/her professional obligations. In the light of the facts that the Applicant was able to return to his high level of functioning at work after he had been transferred out of HATIS on 1 December 2013, that...