51ÁÔÆæ

UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the UN Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, UNAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, UNAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. UNAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before UNRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. UNAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA against judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2018/004. UNAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that UNRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before UNRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, UNAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido¡¯s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly rejected Mr Gido¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held that Mr...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo¡¯s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly rejected the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Hamdan and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that Mr Hamdan¡¯s appointment was not terminated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject Hamdan¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. UNAT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether UNDT erred in its finding that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ its obligation of retention. UNAT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that UNDT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on 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...