Â鶹APP

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT...

UNAT considered the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former UNAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. UNAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the UNDT judgment. UNAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, UNAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. UNAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. UNAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-604 (Ocokoru). UNAT noted that in judgment 2015-UNAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the UNDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the execution of the UNDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of UNDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. UNAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the UNAT Statute...

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 denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. UNAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the UNDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of UNDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. UNAT dismissed the...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As preliminary matters, UNAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by UNAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...