Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled that UNAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. UNAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

On the alleged procedural error of the UNDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, UNAT held that it was well within the competence of UNDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; UNAT dismissed this ground of appeal. UNAT held, affirming the finding of UNDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNDT failed to consider that UNHCR...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. UNAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. UNAT held that the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. UNAT held that UNDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to another UNDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...