51³Ô¹Ï

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 appeals of both judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and UNRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). UNAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. UNAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. UNAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the UNRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by UNRWA DT in hearing his complaint. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, UNAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses’ testimony. UNAT held that UNRWA DT...

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

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 noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. UNAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General’s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler’s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. UNAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), UNDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the UNAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to UNDT and failed to explain how UNDT erred in deciding his claims, UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant’s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. UNAT held that UNDT properly refused to address the Appellant’s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...