51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1055. UNAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the UNRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

It was a reasonable exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion to determine that intentionally abusing a position of power and trust against a beneficiary of UNRWA in a vulnerable situation rendered Mr. Al Khatib unfit for further service with the Agency, and separation from service without termination indemnity was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

The UNAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the UNDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

UNAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the UNAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

UNDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.

Given the modest level of compensation that UNDT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, UNAT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the UNAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something UNAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The UNAT¡¯s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...

The Tribunals¡¯ jurisprudence underscores that the key characteristic of an administrative decision is that it must produce adverse consequences for a staff member¡¯s employment contract or terms of appointment. Decisions that extend a contract, even on a short-term basis, are in the staff member¡¯s favour and do not adversely affect their rights. It is only after a report has been made and processed purusant to ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) that its handling may be the subject matter of a case before the Tribunal. It...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that ¡°the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was contesting an MEU response, which is not an appealable administrative decision.

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ¡®Final judgment of dissolution of marriage¡¯. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

Management evaluation not requested within the statutory deadline. Application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant consistently admitted that the verbal and physical altercation took place and that he damaged the officer¡¯s umbrella. He only challenged the investigation process which he maintained was biased and unfair since it didn¡¯t consider the context of the interaction. He also complained that the most pertinent aspects of the case which were caught on video were never provided to him and he therefore didn¡¯t speak to them in the context of the investigation. Since the Applicant did not deny that he was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with a Kenyan police officer and that he...