ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. UNAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. UNAT held that UNDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. UNAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.

The Appellant appealed the amount of compensation awarded for loss of chance. UNAT noted that there was no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case turned on its facts. UNAT noted that it would generally defer to the trial court¡¯s discretion. UNAT did not accept the Appellant¡¯s argument that the trial court was required to assess the percentage chances that he would have been selected: UNAT held that while it had approved that procedure as one method of assessing damages, it respected the opinion of the trial judge as to how to determine...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

UNAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. UNAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

UNAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT¡¯s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...

UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, UNAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. UNAT vacated the part of the UNDT judgment awarding compensation.

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the UN Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...

UNAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, UNDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. UNAT held there was no basis to disagree with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. UNAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. UNAT held that any alleged error by UNDT in considering the merits was moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. UNAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. UNAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

UNAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...

UNAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the UNDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. UNDT/2009/052) in her request for UNDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the UNDT Statute could not be disregarded. UNAT approved judgment No. UNDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of UNDT in Rosca. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. UNAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA decision.

UNAT considered the appeal and affirmed UNJSPF¡¯s decision. UNAT found that UNJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, UNAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. UNAT accordingly affirmed UNJSPF¡¯s decision to award the widow¡¯s benefit to the former staff member¡¯s first wife and denied all reliefs...