Â鶹APP

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the application to UNDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law...

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

UNAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the UNJSPF. UNAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the UNJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

On receivability, UNAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the UNJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the UNJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the UNJSPF Regulations, UNAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. UNAT held that the reasoning of UNDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. UNAT held that it was unable to identify any...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application to UNAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. UNAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a UNAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, UNAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. UNAT held that, absent a successful...