Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the staff member’s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by UNRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, UNAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, UNAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, UNAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the UNDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the UNAT jurisprudence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.

On appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or fact in accepting estimates from three different hospitals in Turkey, although one such estimate dated in December 2015 (close to the date of the interventions in Geneva, November 2015) and the other two estimates were submitted much later in October 2019. UNAT held the December 2015 estimate was a fair estimate of the medical costs. UNAT also rejected the staff member’s argument that a more favourable exchange rate (1 USD : 3 TRY), which was applicable in 2016, should have been applied to the October 2019 estimates. The Tribunal...