Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that UNDT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on UNDT’s part. UNAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with UNDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT’s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

UNAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. UNDT/2012/142. UNAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain’s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. UNAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. UNAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. UNAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that Ms Akello’s involvement in the private company Blessed Seasons, which was on a Ãå±±½ûµØlist of companies providing escort vehicle services, met the standard of business activity and enterprise prohibited by former Staff Regulation 1. 2(m) and that her activities amounted to a conflict of interest. UNAT held that, in ruling otherwise, UNDT erred in law and fact and the Secretary-General’s appeal succeeded on that ground. On the issue of whether the very fact that the Internal Affairs Unit investigation, having...

UNAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by UNDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of UNFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the UNFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly declined to accept...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. UNAT held that UNRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. UNAT recalled that it was not the role of UNDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. UNAT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, UNAT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. UNAT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. UNAT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah’s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years’ further service. UNAT...