��ż���

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to UNDP. UNAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,” as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants’ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. UNAT held that accounting for factors such as UNAMID’s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate’s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General’s discretion to do so. UNAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ” To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT’s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that he should be considered a UN staff member because he worked with UNOPS for over three years. UNAT concluded that UNDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.