51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. UNAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal¡¯s due process were met. UNAT held that, since the...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by UNDT, UNAT held that the approach of UNDT did not merit the remedy...

UNAT considered both an appeal by Ms Tsoneva and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT disagreed with the UNDT¡¯s interpretation of the prescribed procedure, leading to the discontinuation of Ms Tsoneva¡¯s position, noting that there was no requirement that the staff member¡¯s meeting with the manager must take place after the staff member had received a written notification or that the manager must consult a concerned staff member. UNAT held that the Director complied with the prescribed procedure by discussing the matter with Ms Tsoneva, informing her in writing of his intention to request...

UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. UNAT concurred with the former UN Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. UNAT agreed with the UNDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/104 and UNDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, UNAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it...

UNAT determined that by refusing to review the staff member¡¯s request, the UNJSPB had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 26 of the PAS, whose very purpose ¡°is to address the issue of whether the application of official Consumer Price Index (CPI) data results in ¡®aberrant results¡¯ or the situation where no up-to-date CPI data is available¡±. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the decision of the Standing Committee of the UNJSPB to reject the staff member¡¯s request that the UNJSPF discontinue the local track in application of paragraph 26 of the PAS, and remanded the...

UNAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent¡¯s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant¡¯s request. UNAT held that the matters could be raised by UNJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. UNAT held that the Respondent¡¯s arguments that the Appellant¡¯s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. UNAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the...

The staff member appealed seven UNDT judgments. UNAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

UNAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by UNDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of UNFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the UNFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly declined to accept...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. UNAT held that UNRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. UNAT recalled that it was not the role of UNDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. UNAT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, UNAT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. UNAT...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

The staff member appealed seven UNDT judgments. UNAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, UNAT noted that these matters had been...

UNAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. UNDT/2012/116. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision. UNAT noted that even if the UNDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the UNDT...

UNAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. UNAT held that UNRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. UNAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the UNRWA Area Staff Rules...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. UNAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. UNAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to UNDT¡¯s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr¡¯s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. UNAT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.