�鶹��ý

The UNAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The UNAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The UNAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the UNMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The UNAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It...

The UNAT rejected the former staff member’s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The UNAT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The...

The UNAT observed that the UNDT did not err in denying the staff member’s request for an oral hearing as the case record was “comprehensive” and there was “no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.”

The UNAT held that the staff member’s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The Applicant's motion for interim measure is made in the context of a series of applications arising from decisions taken because of allegations of misconduct against the Applicant, which involved sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Such misconduct is recognized in the regulatory framework as of such gravity that it provides an exceptional basis for placing a staff member on ALWOP pending the conclusion of the investigation. The Applicant contends that, based on new information available, there is no longer any basis for a finding that there is a preponderance of evidence that he engaged in...

The Tribunal recalls that in his pending application, the Applicant contests the 1 December 2023 decision to place him on ALWOP. The Tribunal assessed the lawfulness of this decision in its consideration of the Applicant’s 24 January 2024 application for suspension of action. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not prima facie unlawful. The Applicant argues that the decision-maker failed to consider all the evidence before him when deciding to extend his placement on ALWOP. This, however, could be relevant, at best, in an examination of the 20 August 2024 decision extending the...

A decision made by the Duty Judge is not constantly open for entertainment until decided by the assigned Judge to a case. That would undermine the role of the Duty Judge and render precarious the principle of legal certainty. The principles of transparency and accountability apply to the entire internal justice system regardless of the facts under dispute, the charges of misconduct or the disciplinary measure applied, unless exceptional circumstances guide the Tribunal differently. Concerning exceptional circumstances, the principle of publicity can only be departed from where the applicant...