Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, UNAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, UNAT...

UNAT considered the appeal and held that UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. UNAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the UNRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT rightly rejected the...

UNAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of UNAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the UNAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of UNAT. UNAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that UNRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant¡¯s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, UNAT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. UNAT held that Toure is binding precedent on UNDT as it applied to the Appellant¡¯s case and found no fault with UNDT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that UNRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. UNAT accordingly found that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, UNAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...