¹ú²úAV

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration’s discretionary authority.  The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the UNDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute.  It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the UNAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable.  The UNAT further held that the staff member’s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT. 

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent’s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent’s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

The UNAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the UNDT or the UNAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The UNAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The UNAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the UNAT’s decision or the reasons for it.

The UNAT was of the view that there was also...

The UNAT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure.  Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant.  Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the UNRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal.  It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the UNDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once UNAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. UNAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the UNAT Judgment which would...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. UNAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an application by UNJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. UNAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. UNAT opined that, in actuality, the UNJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that UNAT erred in making an award of interest, which UNJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of UNAT are final and without appeal, UNAT held that this attempt to...

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the UNAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something UNAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The UNAT’s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...