UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before UNDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
UNAT held that the first time the Appellant’s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, UNAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting UNRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant’s claim for moral damages, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT’s order denying the Appellant’s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the UNDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, UNAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the UNDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). UNAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...
UNAT agreed with the UNDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member’s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. UNAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of UNDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the UNDT is not receivable. UNAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...
The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant’s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with UNDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant’s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...
The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant’s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent’s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant’s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. UNDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...
UNDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. UNDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant’s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. UNDT found that the applicant’s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, UNDT found that the applicant’s rights were violated when the...
The UNDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by “clear and convincing evidence†that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office’s failures and/or...
The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s request for a joinder of both cases and it dismisses this case as moot.
