51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-UNAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant¡¯s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s and/or the AJAB¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. UNAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. UNAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. UNAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. UNAT disagreed with UNDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting UNAT intervention...

UNRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. UNRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that UNRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. UNAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. UNAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law, and followed binding UNAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before UNDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. UNAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

UNAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-936 by Mr Diallo. UNAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to him. UNAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.