51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the UNDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The staff member appealed to UNAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the UNICEF job. UNAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an ¡°official act¡± and as such carried with it ¡°the presumption of regularity¡±. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...

The evidence and submissions on record are insufficient to determine the material issue as to whether the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation totaled less than, or in excess of, USD 25,000, in order to determine the authority of the Secretary of the ABCC to take the contested administrative decision. Hence the remand to UNDT to determine whether the Secretary of the ABCC had the valid power to take the contested decision.

The UNRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...

On the request for the oral hearing, UNAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether UNDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, UNAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) UNDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, UNAT held there...

The UNDT did not err in determining that the 11 November 2018 letter provided notification of the final administrative decision subject to appeal, since it contained the key characteristic of producing ¡°¡¯direct legal consequences¡¯ affecting a staff member¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment¡±.

By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.