51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, UNAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. UNAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT upheld both UNDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as UNDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. UNAT, however, vacated UNDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. UNAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA¡¯s decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. UNAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant¡¯s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

UNAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the UNRWA DT judgment. UNAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

UNAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before UNDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, UNAT held that there was no fault in the UNDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT committed any error...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the UNDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before UNDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. UNAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. UNDT/2010/105 in which...