¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Johnson. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s analysis and held that the decision to deny the staff member a refund of the US income tax on her salary and emoluments was unlawful. UNAT recalled that the US grants foreign tax credits in respect of income tax paid by one of its nationals or permanent residents to another State to relieve the effects of double taxation. UNAT held that the exclusion of such credits as payment would not only contravene the principle of equality of treatment among staff members if staff members from the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as a consequence of the UN Income Tax Unit’s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife’s income tax liability in future years. UNAT held that the staff member’s claim for a refund was not moot, as UNDT had correctly determined. UNAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General’s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

UNAT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official’s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation’s...

UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov’s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. UNAT held, however, that UNDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov’s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. UNAT held that Mr Dolgopolov’s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...