As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant’s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT’s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...
UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.
UNAT considered the Appellant’s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT’s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. UNAT did not find that Mr Gehr’s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. UNAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.
UNAT considered Ms Roig’s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Goodwin’s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that UNDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. UNAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-134) on the UNDT’s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB’s recommendation, UNAT found that compensation in the amount of two years’ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether UNDT erred in concluding...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute is alternative...
UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT’s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...
As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that UNJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the UNJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. UNAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld UNJSPF’s “reasoned and well-founded decision.” UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJPSB decision.
