Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member’s application had become moot. UNAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. UNAT held that it was unnecessary for UNDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. UNAT held that the error committed by UNDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. UNAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. UNAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. UNAT held that the ICTR Registrar’s decision was lawful, and UNDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that UNDT erred in the level of award. UNAT held that the Secretary...

UNAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and UNAT, therefore, upheld the findings of UNDT on this point. On compensation, UNAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. UNAT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was...

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. UNAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey’s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT...

UNAT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, UNAT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-531, as UNAT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist UNAT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...

UNAT held that the matter under investigation was closed and the Appellant had not presented any cogent argument to show that there were exceptional circumstances that might otherwise have entitled him to the investigation report. UNAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to receive a detailed copy of the investigation report. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the argument that UNDT erred on questions of law and fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...