51�Թ�

UNAT held that UNDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant’s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. UNAT held that UNDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-UNAT-757) as it did. UNAT noted that in the Appellant’s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

UNAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General’s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT’s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than UNDT’s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by “officials”, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

UNAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. UNAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. UNAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. UNAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. UNAT held...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT’s exercise...

UNAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, UNAT held that UNRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, UNAT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. UNAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that UNRWA...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion lawfully to consolidate the cases. UNAT held that the impugned decisions were taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. UNAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew the Limited Duration Contracts at the time. UNAT held that the Appellants' argument with regard to their acquired rights being violated was without merit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that UNRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. UNAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. UNAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the UNRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute or the Agreement between the UN and ICAO. UNAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. UNAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. UNAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...