Â鶹APP

UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-UNAT-034. UNAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT held that that UNDT had correctly established that the silence of the UNEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. UNAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. UNAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the UNDT decision under appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that UNDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. UNAT held that the evidence...

UNAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the UNDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on UNDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. UNAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her UNRWA official service file. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. UNAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

UNAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., UNDT. UNAT held that to that extent, the UNAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the UN or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the UN, nor was the Organisation aware of the...