51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and UNAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by UNAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. UNAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

UNAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. UNAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. UNAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. UNAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. UNAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...

UNAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. UNAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. UNAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of UNRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding. UNAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged flaws was substantiated.

The Tribunal found that a fundamental procedural flaw had occurred since the same staff member had fulfilled the roles of both the Applicant¡¯s first and second reporting officers. However, no financial compensation was warranted, as the Applicant did not demonstrate that he sustained any material or moral damage stemming from this breach.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...

The Tribunal found that a final decision had been taken on 27 September 2013 by the Registrar and notified to the Applicant on 14 October 2013 and that by filing a request for management evaluation only on 23 June 2014, the application was irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has to all intents and purposes complied with the requirements of art. 8.1 (c). The Administration has had an opportunity to evaluate his request and has refused it. The Applicant is now entitled to come before the Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The final decision taken on the placement of the reprimand in the Applicant¡¯s personnel file was on 25 February 2014 when her attempts to have her comments taken into consideration were finally exhausted. The course of action embarked on by the Applicant to have the matter resolved informally before resorting to the formal process was justifiable in the circumstances given the requirements of ST/AI/292.

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. The Applicant has satisfied the requirements of art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Whilst his request for management evaluation may not have been drafted in the most articulate legal language, the substance conveyed leaves no doubt, the Applicant did not want to be removed from his post and was not happy that it had been readvertized. The Respondent¡¯s objections on the grounds of receivability have no merit.

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants¡¯ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant¡¯s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

Ultra vires - Whereas procedures and guidelines may be developed by the Organisation to implement promulgated issuances, it is unreasonable for said guidelines to be so far reaching as to effectively add new provisions to the overarching issuance. This would amount to a usurpation of the legislative powers of the General Assembly.

Hence, the pre-requisite of seeking management evaluation prior to filing an application before the Tribunal was not met. While, in an earlier management evaluation, the Applicant contested the decision not to advertise any posts of Russian Translator, P-3 at UNON, even assuming that this management evaluation covered the decision impugned in the application, the latter was not filed within the statutory 90-day time limit as from the receipt of the reply to this earlier management evaluation request.

The Tribunal deemed that it was established that in October 2013, the Applicant, a staff member of UNHCR in Turkey, had travelled to Syria in her capacity as a member of a delegation of the Women International Democratic Federation, responding to an invitation received from the Syrian Arab Republic General Women Union. During that visit, she attended a meeting with the President of Syria during which she handed him a flag with the words ¡°Do not yield¡± in Turkish. A picture of that encounter was taken and published in a Turkish online newspaper. The Tribunal considered that in view of the clear...

The Application was rejected on the merits.