Â鶹APP

Both parties appealed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. UNAT, however, disagreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the UNTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of UNRWA¡¯s discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...

UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. UNAT held that the IMO Secretary-General¡¯s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. UNAT held there was no basis...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

UNAT remanded the case to UNDT. UNAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to UNAT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

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...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the UNDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the UNAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the UNDT has: (a) exceeded its...