The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.
The UNAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the UNDT's decision on receivability, the UNAT held that the UNDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.
Turning to the merits, the UNAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The UNAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...
The UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.
The UNAT found that the UNDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member’s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.
The UNAT noted that the UNDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when UNICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...
The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The UNAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The UNAT found that the staff member’s due...
UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant’s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant’s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...
The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The UNAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-à-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...
The UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the UNDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier UNAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The UNAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...
Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa’s request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the UNAT’s Rules of Procedure. The UNAT also found that Mr. Mousa’s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...
Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.
UNAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the UNDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. UNAT noted that there is no...
