�山����

The UNAT held that Mr. Kankwenda, a late participant in the UNJSPF, married another individual, Ms. M.T., in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1971. This fact, which Ms. Isasi herself did not contest, was supported by a marriage certificate and was consistent with the information regarding the dates of birth of Mr. Kankwenda’s children and the identities of their mothers. The UNAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda’s death, purportedly showing their marriage on 17 January 1971, were falsified, undermining her...

The UNAT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the UNDT Judge President, with no allegation of the UNDT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.

The UNAT concluded that an earlier UNDT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.

The UNAT...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the UNAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The UNAT further held that the staff member’s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT.

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...

Receivability

The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of UNHCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.

Merits

Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed

First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant’s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant’s intent was to file an application...

The UNAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member’s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The UNAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The UNAT also found no merit in the staff member’s argument that the lack of...

The UNAT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the UNRWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the UNRWA DT. The UNAT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member’s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The UNAT also observed that the UNRWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2023/011 was...

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two “landmark” performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.