Judge Chapman
UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...
UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. UNAT held that the UNDT’s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment was based solely on speculation and that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. UNAT noted that...
UNAT held that concern about a high-level manager’s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. UNAT noted that it was well within the discretion of UNDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. UNAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. UNAT held there was no merit in...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell’s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. UNAT held that UNDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...
UNAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. UNAT held that the Appellant’s failure to object to the Respondent’s late reply before UNRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent’s reply, UNAT held that since the Appellant did...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...
UNAT addressed the staff member’s appeal seeking reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency’s extension of the Appellant’s...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT noted that UNDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by UNHCR’s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from UNHCR’s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. UNAT upheld the appeal and reversed the UNDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.