¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that UNRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in UNRWA DT’s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency’s...

UNAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, UNAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellants’ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer’s representative and the original...

UNAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. UNAT...

UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable UNAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. UNAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

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 denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-UNAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...