Â鶹APP

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe¡¯s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe¡¯s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. UNAT found no fault in the UNJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. UNAT held that accounting for factors such as UNAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. UNAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

UNAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by UNAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. UNAT found that UNDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT also affirmed UNDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

UNAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that an application before UNDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. UNAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration¡¯s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...