51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and found that UNDT erred in law and fact by awarding a remedy to Mr Nwuke. UNAT held that the violation of Mr Nwuke¡¯s due process rights did not, in and of itself, entitle him to an award of damages and that there was no evidence of any pecuniary loss or harm suffered by Mr Nwuke as a result of said violation. Moreover, UNAT held that not every violation of a staff member¡¯s right will necessarily lead to an award of compensation and there are no legal grounds that can justify such an award when no actual prejudice is found. UNAT accordingly...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found no error in UNDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. UNAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that UNRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, UNAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. UNAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. UNAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by UNDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...