Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of UNAT, UNAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. UNAT held that UNDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2013/035 and UNRWA/DT/2014/004. UNAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. UNAT held that UNRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of UNRWA DT. UNAT held...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

UNAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the UNJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of UNJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF in the administration of its staff. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the UNJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2014/007. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of UNDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for UNDT, UNAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by UNDT had to be vacated. UNAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/028, UNDT/2013/029 and UNDT/2013/076). UNAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. UNAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that UNDT is competent to review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...