�山����

The UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the UNDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases.  The UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier UNAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal.  The UNAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. UNAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when UNDT committed an error of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, UNAT noted that these matters had been...

On the alleged procedural error of the UNDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, UNAT held that it was well within the competence of UNDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; UNAT dismissed this ground of appeal. UNAT held, affirming the finding of UNDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNDT failed to consider that UNHCR...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that UNDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. UNAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to UNDT for his witness to be called. UNAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the UNDT judgment and that it was not clear that UNDT had considered that evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by UNDT for not calling the witness. UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have issued a default “Summary judgment” on the merits of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to another UNDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. UNAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of UNDT and do...