51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. UNAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) UNAT Rules). UNAT agreed with UNDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that UNAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the UNDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, UNAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. UNAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure gives UNDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by UNDT was...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT also found no fault with UNDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. UNAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT agreed that Article 24(a) UNJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. UNAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.