Â鶹APP

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 the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (UNDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (UNDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. UNAT considered whether UNDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that UNDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

On appeal, UNAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. UNAT further held that UNRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. UNAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. UNAT held that UNDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as a consequence of the UN Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as UNDT had correctly determined. UNAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

On the issue of receivability, UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. UNAT held that UNDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. UNAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. UNAT held that there was no legal authority for UNDT to commence the...

UNAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. UNAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. UNAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. UNAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

UNAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered that UNDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke¡¯s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. UNAT held that when it determines that UNDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. UNAT clarified that this did not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. UNDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. UNDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. UNDT/2013/079. On receivability, UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that UNDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the UNDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the Â鶹APP Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held by majority that UNDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate for UNDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the UNDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to UNDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by UNDT, UNAT held that the approach of UNDT did not merit the remedy...