UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. UNAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the UNAT judgment.
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
UNAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...
UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...
UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT’s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...
UNAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the UNRWA DT judgment. UNAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant’s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.
UNAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...
ArUNAT held that UNRWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, UNAT held that UNRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. UNAT held that the inference drawn by UNRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...
