51ÁÔÆæ

Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA ¡°within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment¡±. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materia.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s intentional actions amounted to misconduct. Although the Applicant did not receive any money from the health insurance company, the mere fact that he attempted to defraud the company by knowingly submitting false information constituted a violation of staff regulation 1.2(b) and amounted to misconduct. Whereas the Applicant contended that his termination was disproportionate particularly in view of his 17 years of service to the Organisation and his continuous satisfactory performance, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to...

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the UNDP Administrator due to...

Due process rights: Disciplinary proceedings are of an administrative and not of a criminal nature, hence criminal law procedures do not apply. The Applicant¡¯s due process rights are contained in the relevant administrative issuances, under which rights such as the right to counsel and to be informed about the charges against him do only apply as of the moment the disciplinary procedure is initiated (charge letter), but not at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The right to cross examine witnesses does not apply at any stage of the administrative procedure, but only once the case is...

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the UNDT Statute and article 30 of the UNDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; UNDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) by mistake. UNAT held that UNDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submission, UNAT held that UNDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. UNAT found no fault in the UNJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe¡¯s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe¡¯s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

UNAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the UNJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. UNAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the UNJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. UNAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. UNAT held that there was no obligation for UNJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it concluded that the Administration¡¯s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. UNAT held...

UNAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. UNAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/113 (UNAT Case No. 2016-972) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-973). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the application to UNDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/111 (UNAT Case No. 2016-964) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-969). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.