UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. UNAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
UNAT considered the appeal and affirmed UNJSPF’s decision. UNAT found that UNJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, UNAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. UNAT accordingly affirmed UNJSPF’s decision to award the widow’s benefit to the former staff member’s first wife and denied all reliefs...
The former staff member appealed and UNAT considered whether he could compel UNICEF to pay to the Fund its contribution without making the corresponding contribution himself. UNAT found that, as the former staff member’s secondment was with the World Bank, he should have availed himself of the provisions of Article 13 of the UNJSPF Regulations relating to the transfer of pension rights and he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, UNAT noted that if the former staff member made his own contribution to the Fund, UNICEF would have been duty-bound to make its corresponding contribution...
On appeal, the Appellant asserted that the Commissioner-General erred in not following the JAB’s recommendation. UNAT held that the JAB did not assess the totality of the evidence when making its recommendation. UNAT specifically held that the JAB’s recommendation that no clear policy or instruction prevented the Appellant from giving the individual the authorization to use the DSA Facility did not take into account that there was a clear policy to inform his supervisors, which the Appellant failed to do. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
In reviewing the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. UNAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. UNAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...
UNAT confirmed the UNJSPB’s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the UNJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. UNAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.
UNAT found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. UNAT found that UNDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run “from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ” As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, UNAT found that UNDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT set aside UNDT’s judgment and remanded the case back to UNDT to have the...
UNAT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. UNAT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one’s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. UNAT also affirmed the findings of fact by UNDT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...
In considering the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant’s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before UNDT. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. UNAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant’s situation, involving the UNHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...
UNAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. UNAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. UNAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.
