51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant challenged an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment and that the application was receivable. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Smith¡¯s request for management evaluation and the MEU¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of UNDT to adequately interpret and...

UNAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. UNDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. UNAT dismissed the appeals. UNAT confirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish the posts. UNAT noted that, while in other aspects, UNDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

UNAT vacated UNDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, UNAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the UNRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that UNRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. UNAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. UNAT held that there was no evidence that UNRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to UNDP. UNAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, UNAT held that success before UNDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to UNAT, as the unsuccessful party before UNDT, the...

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, UNDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. UNAT...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. UNAT found no error in UNDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...

UNDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

The Tribunal held that the denial of the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive promotion was lawful. The Tribunal advanced the following reasons: a) It was legitimate for the ASG/OHRM to invoke a reason for denial of retroactive promotion that would have created technical problems and additional costs as pension contributions; b) The deninal of the Applicant¡¯s request for a retroactive promotion was not unlawful because of the length of the selection process, given that the selection concerned a promotion for a D-1 position requiring utmost care in the examination and consideration of the...

Res judicata: Res judicata signifies that the same course of action cannot be adjudicated twice. For the stability of the judicial process, it is desirable that there is an end to litigation. Accordingly, the party who loses cannot relitigate his or her case. Remand: The fact that analogous cases of 14 fellow colleagues from UNDP based in India were remanded by the Appeals Tribunal to the Dispute Tribunal, further to their respective appeals, has no bearing with respect to the fact that the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s judgment became final and non-appealable for those, such as the Applicants, who did...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with UNSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...