Â鶹APP

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/113 (UNAT Case No. 2016-972) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-973). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/111 (UNAT Case No. 2016-964) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-969). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

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 considered a request for revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that there was no fault with the UNDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that UNDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. UNAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings UNAT would not...

UNAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. UNAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to UNDP. UNAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

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...