����AV

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic’s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General’s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by UNDT, UNAT held that the approach of UNDT did not merit the remedy...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. UNAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or UNAT to conduct a fresh investigation. UNAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the UNAT RoP and no...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO’s Field Service Staff Rules. UNAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the “neutral first instance process”. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

UNAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

UNAT considered an application to UNAT contesting the Conciliation Committee’s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. UNAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a UNAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen’s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar’s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, UNAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. UNAT held that, absent a successful...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. UNAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

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 the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB’s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...