�山����

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. UNAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT’s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT’s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

The UNAT refused the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”, (Article 18(1) UNAT Rules). UNAT agreed with UNDT that there were “inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself” and that UNAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the UNDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. UNAT found that the Appellant’s...

UNAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. UNAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request to file a reply to the Respondent’s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s second motion seeking leave to present additional “information” which she claimed related to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT upheld both UNDT’s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as UNDT’s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. UNAT, however, vacated UNDT’s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. UNAT held that “generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, UNAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. UNAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

UNAT held, agreeing with UNDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel’s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. UNAT held that the reprimand in the offender’s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe’s reputation and career. UNAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT’s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT’s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT’s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General’s reply...

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT considered an application to UNAT contesting the Conciliation Committee’s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. UNAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a UNAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen’s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar’s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, UNAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. UNAT held that, absent a successful...