51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. UNAT further affirmed UNDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. UNAT, however, noted that UNDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. UNAT further noted that this error by UNDT did not adversely affect...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration¡¯s practice of removing the candidates¡¯ names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. UNAT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives...

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that UNDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, UNAT held that UNDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that UNRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-UNAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of UNHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to UNAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. UNAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and UNAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of UNAT can be revised, UNAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to UNAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, UNAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the UNDT Judge was biased, UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, UNAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. UNAT...