51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall’s conduct into question. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. UNAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by UNDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

The Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Cabrera’s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell’s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. UNAT held that UNDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. UNAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before UNRWA DT, in light of which UNAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different UNRWA DT Judge, namely that UNRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant’s request for a copy of the...

UNAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and UNAT, therefore, upheld the findings of UNDT on this point. On compensation, UNAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. UNAT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was...

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the order of UNRWA DT to rescind the contested...

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...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid’s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT’s role to review...