Â鶹APP

To the extent that the UNDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, UNAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, UNAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which UNDT granted the withdrawal request. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. UNAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

UNAT vacated UNDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. UNAT held that, while UNDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that, before UNDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

UNAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in awarding costs against him. UNAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. UNAT found that UNDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of UNDT or had, in any other way, abused UNDT¡¯s proceedings. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, UNAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. UNAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

UNAT held that UNDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. UNAT held that there was...

UNAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2015/100, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that a UNRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the UN Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, UNAT reiterated that UNAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction...