�山����

UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. UNAT held that joint representation by UN-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and UNMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. UNAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). UNAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before UNDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant’s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that UNDT’s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT’s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. UNAT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

Administrative decision: Measures taken on the basis of ST/SGB/2008/5 must not be considered as preliminary decisions that cannot be contested. The absence of a response to an Applicant’s specific requests may amount to an implicit administrative decision, if it has direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s rights as a staff member.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable.

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged “secret and retaliatory” investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...

The Tribunal concluded that there were critical procedural irregularities that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. Procedural irregularities: The Tribunal concluded that: (i) in the light of the findings of the Inspection Mission, which investigated the same complaints as the Investigation Team, it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent to establish a second body and labeling it an Investigation Team to carry out the same exercise that had been carried out by the Inspection Mission; (ii) the Investigation Team committed a number of procedural...

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a �山���� of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (“DSS Weapons MOI”), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...