UNDT/2023/057, Bagga
Decisions of UNSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.
Decisions of UNSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.
The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the 麻豆APP Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.
The UNAT also rejected Mr...
The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.
The UNAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.
The UNAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the UNRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/022.
After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.
The UNAT found that the UNDT’s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...
The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.
The UNAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the UNDT but which it did not accept.
The UNAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...
The UNAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The UNAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.
An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...
UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNJSPB decision.
UNAT recalled that at the time of Mr. Arigon’s entry into participation in 2002, Article 24 did not allow him the option to restore his prior contributory service because that option was limited to participants whose previous period of contributory service was less than five years and who had received a withdrawal settlement; neither of which applied to him. When the 2007 amendment to Article 24 was introduced, he had a one-year window, from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2008, during which he could elect to restore his prior period of...
UNAT held that Mr. Saleh’s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the UNDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the UNDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the UNDT.
UNAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. UNAT then held that Mr. Saleh’s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the UNDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...
AAF appealed.
The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.
The UNAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member’s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the UNDT. As the Secretary-General had...
UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, UNAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.
However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint, UNAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the UNDT made no ruling on this...