Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
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...
nglUNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. UNAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. UNAT held that...
UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...
UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. UNAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the UNDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the UNOPS Administration had approved such leave. UNAT further held that that the Appellant’s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...
UNAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the UNDT Judgment.
The staff member filed an appeal to UNAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. UNAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...
i. Whether the Applicant’s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/UNON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...
The UNDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal’s role is only to review the legality of the...
The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.
