51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT acknowledged that while the Appellant was eligible for a permanent appointment, the Administration was entitled to have regard to the fact that she was recruited because she was a national of Romania for the specific post in UNIC Bucharest. UNAT noted that both the Department of Public Information and the Officer-in-Charge of Human Resources Services previously anticipated that UNIC Bucharest, among others, was scheduled to close in the very near future, due to the uncertainty of the funding by the host country, on which the continuation of the Appellant¡¯s post depended. UNAT noted that...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. UNAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

UNAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules. UNAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between UNJSPF and CTBTO. UNAT...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that UNJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the UNJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. UNAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld UNJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJPSB decision.

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the UNRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. UNAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the UNRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. UNAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

UNAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by UNDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s UNDT application was not receivable. UNAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the UNDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. UNAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, UNAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before UNRWA DT. UNAT found that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred in fact or law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

The UNDT noted despite reminders sent by the Staff Union, and once the Applicant realized that her application had not been processed, she still did not take any action to rectify the situation, and filed her application only nearly two years later. The UNDT found that the circumstances the Applicant described could not be considered ¡°beyond her control¡±, and rejected her request for a waiver of the time limit to file her application as being unfounded; hence the application was rejected as being time-barred.

The Applicant, who had been separated on 31 December 2012, filed a report to OIOS in January 2013 referring to ¡°gross breaches of UN project management and procurement rules and regulations¡± (part A of the complaint), ¡°mal intended recruitment¡± (part B of the complaint) and ¡°misconduct of supervisor¡± (part C of the complaint). He appealed the OIOS decision not to launch an investigation into his report and ¡°not to provide him with the requisite information and to provide misleading information¡±. The Tribunal found that the application with respect to the decision not to investigate part A was...

The Tribunal concluded that the established facts did not legally amount to misconduct and that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore, a violation of her rights. Breadth of judicial review: When reviewing disciplinary matters, the role of the Tribunal is to look at all the facts, including the facts that came up during the investigation. Thus, the Tribunal is entitled to look at the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the facts gathered; the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. ST/AI/371: The Tribunal noted that: (i)...

The Tribunal considered both applications receivable, and held that both the fact-finding panel and the ICTR Registrar misinterpreted the definition of harassment contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 by finding that an action which happens only at one instance, without any previous or subsequent similar behavior, does not amount to harassment, since harassment normally implies a series of incidents. The Tribunal recalled the definition of harassment and its constitutive elements, which may also include a one-off incident as affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, and decided to rescind the decision to close...

The Tribunal found that the acts described under (1), (4) and (5) did not meet the definition of a challengeable administrative decision, whereas the Applicant¡¯s contention with regard to (2) was moot since her appointment had been extended by the Organization and she was not separated after 31 December 2013. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s contention made under (3), as it considered that she did not fall under the categories of staff members for which the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Management has the authority of exceptional placement outside the normal selection...

While the delay in the investigation process in this case constituted a breach of the requirements of promptness in ST/SGB/2005/8, the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct was ongoing as opposed to making no progress at all. The Respondent¡¯s submission provided the Applicant with a full explanation of the reasons for the delays, which UNDT held was a sufficient remedy in all the circumstances. Moral Damages - Not every breach will give rise to an award of moral damages as a result of a breach of the procedural due process entitlements and that other entitlement to...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s submission did not contain any dates for the impugned acts, nor any succinct statement of facts and reasons to contest such acts. It therefore dismissed the case for lack of substance and abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the USG/DESA complied with ST/SGB/2008/5 by closing the case and providing the Applicant with a summary of the Investigation Panel¡¯s findings and conclusions. However the applicable mandatory time limits for assessing the complaint, appointing the panel and submitting the final investigation report were not respected. The Applicant is awarded a compensation in the total amount of USD2,300. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the Investigation Panel did not gather sufficient evidence or erred in reaching its findings and conclusions presented in the report...

He alleges that the decision was discriminatory, since based on his Kurdish ethnicity, and not based on reasons of force majeure, namely the earthquake that occurred in Van in October/November 2011 and which led to the temporary closure of the UNHCR office in Van. A hearing took place 0n 5 February 2013, during which the Applicant requested the Tribunal to call a witness to provide testimony concerning his claim that the decision was discriminatory. His request to have his witness heard was, however, not granted and Judge Cousin, in Judgment Kacan UNDT/2013/025 of 19 February 2013, rejected...

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...