51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, UNAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before UNDT. UNAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before UNAT and therefore UNAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of UNAT judgment No. 2017-UNAT-807. UNAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of UNAT¡¯s order in the judgment. UNAT held that, although UNAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. UNAT held that it was egregious that UNJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, UNAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by UNDT and the award that UNAT considered ought to have been made. UNAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

UNAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-820. UNAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. UNAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. UNAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. UNAT...