Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. UNAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered UNRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. UNAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

UNAT held that the reason upon which UNDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. UNAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by UNDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. UNAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the UNDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the UNDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the UNDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the UNAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The UNAT also held that the sanction of...

UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...