The UNAT found that the UNDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu鈥檚 application as not receivable ratione temporis. The UNAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu鈥檚 position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the UNDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.
The UNAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the UNAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the UNAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...
The UNAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior UNAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.
The UNAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the UNAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the UNAT had already...
The UNAT held that the Administration provided a thorough and detailed analysis of the factors required to be considered in the disciplinary context. This included : the past practice of the Organization in comparable matters, the seriousness of the misconduct; whether the conduct was accidental, careless, reckless, or deliberate; whether the staff member followed procedures and was self-aware of the conduct; whether, given the staff member鈥檚 experience, the misconduct was minor, substantive, or severe; the risk of damage to the Organization and staff; as well as any mitigating factors.
The...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member鈥檚 motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General鈥檚 submissions.
The UNAT also concluded that the UNDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The UNAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his UNDT application and his management evaluation...
The UNAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.
The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT鈥檚 determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision. The UNDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.
The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the lawfulness of the...
The UNAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.
The UNAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the UNDT鈥檚 determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a UNDT hearing had not affected its decision. The UNDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...
The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.
The UNAT found...
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鈥檚 children and the identities of their mothers. The UNAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT.
The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...