Â鶹APP

UNAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant UNDT Registry. UNAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. UNAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. UNAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT...

UNAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. UNAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that UNDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. UNAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to UNDT for his witness to be called. UNAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the UNDT judgment and that it was not clear that UNDT had considered that evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by UNDT for not calling the witness. UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked UNDT to overturn a policy. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. UNAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with UNDT¡¯s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT...

UNAT held that the decision of the UNJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the UNJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that UNAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, UNAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...