The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.
The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.
The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.
The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...
The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the “Observations” of UNDT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a UNDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. UNAT held that UNDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, “Observations” in the manner in which it did. UNAT held that, in light of the UNDT’s determination on the issue of receivability, UNDT had no jurisdiction to make “Observations” as it did. UNAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...
The application is filed within the statutory deadline and is therefore receivable.
Due to the fact that the Applicant had not been rostered following the completion of the initial post selection, he was not eligible for consideration to be selected upon the transfer of the first selected candidate under art 10.4 of ST/AI/2006/3. The selection of a candidate “from the list endorsed by the central review body with respect to the particular vacancy” is a new separate administrative decision and therefore none of the Applicant’s rights were breached by this new selection. Consequently, the Applicant lacks standing to contest the second separate and individual administrative...
