51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. UNAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. UNAT also held that UNDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment was firmly supported by the evidence relative to the necessities of service in the context of a downsizing exercise, and no bias or improper purpose vitiated the impugned decision. UNAT held that as the Appellant did not effectively rebut the conclusions of the impugned judgment, he did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that it was defective such as to...

UNAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in awarding costs against him. UNAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. UNAT found that UNDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of UNDT or had, in any other way, abused UNDT¡¯s proceedings. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the non-selection of the Appellant was not vitiated by any improper motive. UNAT noted that, even if the alleged flaws were to be considered irregularities, they would not be important enough to render the proceedings null or to reflect a violation of rights and actual harm or discrimination suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that no compensation should be awarded to the Appellant, as no illegality or breach of...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. UNAT did not find that Mr Gehr¡¯s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. UNAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

UNAT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. UNAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT considered Ms Roig¡¯s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that UNDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. UNAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-134) on the UNDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, UNAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether UNDT erred in concluding...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute is alternative...

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

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 the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. UNDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. UNDT/2013/101. UNAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. UNAT found that UNDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. UNAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...