ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT held that the Appellant’s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

UNAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael’s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. UNAT held that Michael’s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. UNAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline’s marriage to Michael invalid. UNAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no nexus between the emotional distress of preparing for the exam and the impugned decision as the preparation took place prior to the decision. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the contradictory information received by Ms Mirkovic and the lack of responses from the Chief of the Examinations and Tests Section added to her stress and injury was not supported by the facts, noting that written confirmation of what the Chief had told her was not required in order for her to request management evaluation. UNAT held that...