Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. UNAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General’s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler’s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. UNAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), UNDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the UNAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to UNDT and failed to explain how UNDT erred in deciding his claims, UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant’s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. UNAT held that UNDT properly refused to address the Appellant’s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko’s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for Ãå±±½ûµØpurposes was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko’s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. UNAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko’s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. UNAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. UNAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant’s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...