51ÁÔÆæ

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UNAT held that its task was to review whether any or all the fees, for which Mr. Awad requested reimbursement, constituted admissible expenses, either as ¡°enrolment-related fees¡± or ¡°tuition¡±. The wording of Section 3.1(a) and (b) of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, their systematic context with other provisions of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the goals of the General Assembly and UNAT¡¯s recent jurisprudence should be taken into account. The UNAT found that there was no ¡°plain meaning of enrollment¡±. While the word ¡°enrolment¡±, in...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and UNICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant¡¯s post was established and funded and¡ªby a subsequent exclusion¡ªalso showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of UN Women¡¯s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (¡°G-3¡±). The Respondent...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (¡°the USG¡±), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence. In a note on ¡°delegation details¡± valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, ¡°This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...