51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. UNAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. UNAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by UNRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

UNAT noted that UNRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the UNRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). UNAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by UNAT judgments: it identified the...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and set aside the UNDT¡¯s Judgment. UNAT held that the correct way to make the comparison to ensure that the minimum increase in net base salary under Staff Rule 3.4(b) is achieved for the staff member is to compare both remunerations shorn of their COL and post adjustment elements and of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s assessments under each. UNAT found that although not perfect because of the potential variability of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s personal assessments under each, it achieves the required comparator using the GS net...

Mr. Okwir appealed. UNAT found that the UNDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the UNDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. UNAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

UNAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. UNAT held that to the extent UNDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. UNAT allowed the appeal in part. UNAT vacated the UNDT Judgment by...

Ms. Koduru appealed. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law or fact in concluding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Specifically, UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru had failed to meet the burden of proof that the decision was based on ulterior motives and a protracted pattern of harassment, as well as to establish a causal link between the alleged incidents and the challenged administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Rather, such a decision, as correctly determined by the UNDT, was a reasonable and proper exercise of the...

UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. UNAT found that in any case the UNDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the UNDT Judgment asking that UNAT reverse the UNDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. UNAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...