51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which UNDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. UNAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. UNAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. UNAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

UNAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that UNDT failed to implement the UNAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by UNAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli¡¯s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required UNAT to revise its judgment. UNAT held that neither the remand order of UNAT nor the need to have the Appellant¡¯s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. UNAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. UNAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. UNAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration¡¯s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that UNRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-UNAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of UNHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to UNAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the UNDT Judge was biased, UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, UNAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. UNAT held that he did not demonstrate that UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. UNAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. UNAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the UNDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal.