51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before UNDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

UNAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-UNAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that UNDT had made to its own judgment. UNAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the UNDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered an application by UNJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. UNAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. UNAT opined that, in actuality, the UNJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that UNAT erred in making an award of interest, which UNJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of UNAT are final and without appeal, UNAT held that this attempt to...

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. UNAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by UNAT on her application for a suspension of action. UNAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before UNDT. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

UNAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. UNAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. UNAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. UNAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General raised the argument, inter alia, that Ms Lamb¡¯s retroactive appointment was disrupted when she resigned and separated and, therefore, she had no contractual relationship with the Organisation obliging it to place her preferentially in vacant posts as someone holding a permanent appointment. UNAT held that UNDT concluded correctly that (1) Ms Lamb¡¯s employment ended in mid-2013 by her own initiative and (2) there was nothing in the documentation relating to Ms Lamb¡¯s resignation to support her assertion that it was...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. UNAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UNDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant failed...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, UNAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, UNAT held that the UNDT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, UNAT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, UNAT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

The Appellant challenged UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. UNAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and the party applying for revision. UNAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the UN Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the UNJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. UNAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, UNAT held that the UNDT was correct...

UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that UNAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

As a first preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. UNAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and UNAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. UNAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. UNAT held that its RoP did...

UNAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, UNAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the UNDT. UNAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

UNAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, UNAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the UNAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, UNAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. UNAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant¡¯s appeal should be reconsidered and...

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...