����AV

UNAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. UNAT held that to the extent UNDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. UNAT held that the Administration’s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. UNAT held that the Administration’s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. UNAT allowed the appeal in part. UNAT vacated the UNDT Judgment by...

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the UNDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the UNDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

Due process rights: Disciplinary proceedings are of an administrative and not of a criminal nature, hence criminal law procedures do not apply. The Applicant’s due process rights are contained in the relevant administrative issuances, under which rights such as the right to counsel and to be informed about the charges against him do only apply as of the moment the disciplinary procedure is initiated (charge letter), but not at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The right to cross examine witnesses does not apply at any stage of the administrative procedure, but only once the case is...

The Applicant, as an ad litem judge of the ICTY, is considered to be a “non-Secretariat United Nations official”. It follows that the Applicant cannot be considered as a former United Nations staff member within the meaning of art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. Whilst being fully cognizant of the Applicant’s right to access to justice, the Tribunal is forced to apply its Statute, which prevents it from asserting jurisdiction over the application. As the Applicant does not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants described in art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute...