Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. UNAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UNDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant failed...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT judgment was defective or that the UNDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of UNDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, UNAT held that UNDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. UNAT held...

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

UNAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, UNAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the UNAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, UNAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. UNAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant¡¯s appeal should be reconsidered and...

UNAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, UNAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the UNDT. UNAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

As a first preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. UNAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and UNAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. UNAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. UNAT held that its RoP did...

UNRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. UNRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. UNRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...