51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, UNAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the UNDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the UNAT jurisprudence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.

On appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or fact in accepting estimates from three different hospitals in Turkey, although one such estimate dated in December 2015 (close to the date of the interventions in Geneva, November 2015) and the other two estimates were submitted much later in October 2019. UNAT held the December 2015 estimate was a fair estimate of the medical costs. UNAT also rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that a more favourable exchange rate (1 USD : 3 TRY), which was applicable in 2016, should have been applied to the October 2019 estimates. The Tribunal...

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties¡¯ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant¡¯s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal¡¯s order¡ªthe use of the word ¡°grounds¡± in a subheading instead of ¡°issues¡± is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

Where evidence is capable of establishing a likelihood of a connection between potentially extraneous considerations and a failure to obtain a renewal of a contract, summary dismissal is unlikely to be warranted. Where one party raises sufficient material suggesting a particular fact or facts and the other party has the sole means of refuting that inference, then an evidentiary burden to call that evidence will ordinarily arise so that a failure to do so will make it relatively easy for the other party to treat the fact as proven. Outcome: The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, without...

The applicant was given the opportunity of providing arguments and submissions which may tend to show that he had an arguable case. He has failed to do so. There was ample evidence before the Secretary-General to support a finding of serious misconduct. The internal disciplinary investigations complied with the principles of natural justice. There were no procedural irregularities in the investigation and the sanction of summarily dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

UNDT ordered the applicant to show cause why his appeal against dismissal should not be struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to respond. UNDT found that the order to show cause was properly served on the applicant and that SIU¡¯s investigation produced clear evidence establishing the facts supporting the charges. UNDT further found that there was no procedural irregularity, improper motive, or abuse of power, and that the sanction of summary dismissal was a fair and proportionate response. Outcome: The application was struck out in its...

The time for requesting an administrative review runs from the date the administrative decision was received by the staff member. The respondent¡¯s refusal to fulfill the three requests of the applicant resulted in three administrative decisions. Even though these decisions were connected to the letter of reprimand they did not reiterate matters contained in the letter of reprimand and they were motivated by events subsequent to that letter.Outcome: The applicant¡¯s request for administrative review was brought in time and his appeal against the outcome of that review is receivable.