51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal held that regarding the Applicant¡¯s requests for compensation for time spent since she separated from the Organisation, salary arrears, interest of 15% paid on compensation and salary arrears and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred on medical bills these claims were not awarded by the UNDT Judgment and such could not be claimed as part of the execution. As such, all the four claims were rejected. However, the Tribunal found that the only issue relevant to the execution of the UNDT Judgment that was still pending was the interest due on awards granted therein. Accordingly...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. UNAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

nglUNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. UNAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. UNAT held that...

UNAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor¡¯s benefit. UNAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund¡¯s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-UNAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that UNDT had made to its own judgment. UNAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the UNDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...