Íæż½ã½ã

UNAT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. UNAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of UNRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and UNRWA’s regulatory...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of UNDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General’s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, UNAT held that UNAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT accepted the Secretary-General’s position that UNMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the UNMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. UNAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. UNAT held that the change in the composition of the...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT’s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2013/035 and UNRWA/DT/2014/004. UNAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. UNAT held that UNRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of UNRWA DT. UNAT held...

On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General’s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, UNAT held that the Appellant’s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant’s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

UNAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the UNJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of UNJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF in the administration of its staff. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the UNJSPF’s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT...