The UNAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the UNAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment
The UNAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the UNAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The UNAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the UNDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the UNDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new UNDT judgment in its entirety, including the UNDT’s holding on the merits.
The UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the UNDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...
The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months’ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months’ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.
The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the staff member’s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The UNAT found that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the UNDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...
The UNAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.
On the merits, the UNAT found that the UNRWA DT correctly identified the Agency’s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the UNAT...
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the former staff member’s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on UNAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The UNAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The UNAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, UNAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the UNDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.
As to the second application, UNAT held that the Administration’s interpretation of the Settlement...
The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed timely.
Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member’s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The UNAT observed that the former staff member...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member’s complaint was lawful. The UNAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with UNDP’s legal framework.
The UNAT further held that the UNDT correctly rejected the staff member’s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The UNAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...
The UNAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the UNDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.
The UNAT found that the UNDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...
