51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...

UNAT vacated UNDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. UNAT held that, while UNDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that, before UNDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

UNAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. UNAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. UNAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the UNDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether UNDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, UNAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, UNDT was not competent to consider the issue...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of UNDT that Mr Koutang¡¯s actions did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, UNAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held there was no error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept UNRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where UNRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering UNRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in its determination. UNAT held that there was no legal basis for UNDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. UNAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to UNDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. UNAT held that as of 30 June 2009, UNAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2012/131. UNAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. UNDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. UNDT/2012/129 and judgment No. UNDT/2012/130. UNAT held that, since it had rescinded the UNDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. UNAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of UNDT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a UNDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. UNAT held that UNDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. UNAT held that, in light of the UNDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, UNDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. UNAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...

UNAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. UNDT/2012/142. UNAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. UNAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. UNAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. UNAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM, and not the ICTY Registrar, had discretionary authority in matters of permanent appointment. UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM had failed to exercise her discretion in a lawful manner in adopting a blanket policy of denial of permanent appointments to ICTY staff members rather than affording them the individual consideration to which they were entitled. Finding that the staff members were discriminated against and the impugned decision was legally void, UNAT rescinded the impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the ASG/OHRM for consideration of retroactive...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

UNAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

The Tribunal found that the decision was lawful and that the case file did not allow concluding that it was tainted by favoritism for the selected, external candidate, inter alia, since the HM had initially recommended an internal candidate. Procedural irregularities: The decision not to convoke a shortlisted, internal candidate, who was not recommended by the HM, for a test and/or interview is in accordance with the applicable rules at UNHCR. UNHCR policy on comparative review is not applicable in cases of non-selection not involving the abolition of post. Discretionary authority: In...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.