Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNAT held that there was no merit to the staff member’s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General’s response to a UNAT order requesting information. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

In considering the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant’s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before UNDT. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. UNAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant’s situation, involving the UNHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2010/061 on compensation. UNAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. UNAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., UNDT. UNAT held that to that extent, the UNAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

UNAT considered Ms Simmons’ appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that UNDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, UNAT found that UNDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons’ omissions and/or actions. UNAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, UNAT held that UNDT did not...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General’s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT’s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT’s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...