51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, UNAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT¡¯s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

UNAT held that the UNDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. UNAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant¡¯s unauthorised absence from duty. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-091) from the present case. UNAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

UNAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. UNAT upheld the UNDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. UNAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, UNDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT held that UNDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

On the delay before UNDT, UNAT agreed that the delay was unfortUNATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that UNDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. UNAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. UNAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the UNDT. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT¡¯s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by ¡°officials¡±, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before UNDT. UNAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before UNAT and therefore UNAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.