Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The UNAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The UNAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the UNDT’s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The UNAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The UNAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The UNAT found that the UNWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The UNAT concluded that the UNRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. UNAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by UNRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before UNRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so.  The investigators would have reached...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the UNRWA.

The UNAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member’s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The UNAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the UNRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.  

The UNAT noted that the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that UNDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. UNAT held that both UNDT and UNAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that UNDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

UNAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. UNAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. UNAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

UNAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, UNDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly...