51ÁÔÆæ

The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Prodanovic had met the criteria for a continuing appointment and that under the applicable legal framework, the award of a continuing appointment was not subject to the Secretary-General's discretion. The UNDT therefore correctly held that the decision not to grant her a continuing appointment was unlawful.

The Appeals Tribunal however found that the granting of a continuing appointment was not an "appointment" for the purpose of Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, and that the UNDT had erred in awarding in-lieu compensation.

The Appeals Tribunal...

The UNAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/001.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of UNRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The UNAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.

The UNAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

The UNAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.

The UNAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The UNAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the UNAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The UNAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the mobility allowance serves as an incentive to encourage movement of staff members to field duty stations in accordance with the Organization¡¯s needs and it is not, as the UNDT found, designed to cover the actual costs of relocation and living in a particular duty station. However, UNISFA, did conduct, as instructed, a new recruitment exercise which allowed Mr. Oppal to compete again. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that since Mr. Oppal did not apply for the re-advertised position thereby choosing to give up the opportunity to receive the mobility incentive...

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...