Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered the Appellants’ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer’s representative and the original...

UNAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. UNAT...

UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable UNAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. UNAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. UNAT held that the IMO Secretary-General’s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. UNAT held there was no basis...

UNAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, UNAT held that UNRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, UNAT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. UNAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that UNRWA...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-UNAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ãå±±½ûµØand the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...