�鶹��ý

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT dismissed Mr. Qassem’s request for an oral hearing. The UNAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”.

The UNAT found that since Mr. Qassem’s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the UNDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The UNAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The UNAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the UNAT.

The UNAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the UNDT. The UNAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

The UNAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the UNDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane’s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

The application is denied.

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal's Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Secretary-General appealed.

The UNAT found that the UNDT erred in law and fact and reached a manifestly unreasonable decision by concluding that Mr. Hossain had proved on a balance of probabilities that the administrative decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment had been motivated by improper motives and he had been discriminated against. The reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr. Hossain’s fixed-term appointment, namely the abolition of his post in the context of a reorganization exercise, were valid reasons.

The UNAT further held that contrary to what Mr...

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

UNAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. UNAT found that – unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M’s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

The Applicant claims that several events of prohibited conduct occurred between 2018 and 2022 affecting him. However, he did not follow the procedural path under Bulletins ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) and ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) for the handling of formal reports of prohibited conduct and the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into such allegations.

There is no evidence that the Applicant ever...