Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the UNDT finding that the non-renewal decision constituted a separation decision for abandonment of post was not supported by the evidence and was, therefore, an error in fact and in law. UNAT held that the evidence clearly established that the non-renewal decision was solely based on the Appellant’s unauthorised absence from duty. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in distinguishing Abdallah (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-091) from the present case. UNAT held that there was overwhelming evidence that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proving that the Administration did not act...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by UNDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. UNAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

The UNDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, UNAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that Mr Harris’ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, UNAT found no reason to differ from the UNDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

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 agreed with UNDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the UNDT finding that the staff member’s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. UNAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member’s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. UNAT further agreed with UNDT that the staff member had the...

The UNECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The UNECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with Ãå±±½ûµØinternational legal instruments on human rights. The UNECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant’s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the UNECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

The Tribunal found that the decision to separate the Applicant for abandonment of post was not unlawful because: the Applicant was absent from duty he did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for failure to report to work the Administration followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal laws of the Organization and the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the impropriety that he alleged.

The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...

There is no evidence on the record that the mandatory procedure established in secs. 9, 10, 15 and 16 of ST/AI/400 for separation by abandonment of post was followed in the Applicant’s case. The Administration did not act fairly and transparently with the Applicant. DSS lead the Applicant to believe that it was still considering granting him a SLWOP, while, at the same time, it recommended the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment due to his unauthorized absence on the other. That the non-renewal decision following the expiration of the Applicant’s contract, constitutes a separation...