ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB’s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...

UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable UNAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. UNAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-UNAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...

UNAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to UNDT. UNAT held that the report of WMO 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 had to 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 WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and WMO dated 20 January 2020. UNAT...

UNAT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute or the Agreement between the UN and ICAO. UNAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. UNAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

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...

UNAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the UNAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the UNAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something UNAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The UNAT’s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...