¹ú²úAV

The UNAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The UNAT found that the facts suggest that the participant’s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant’s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute and therefore UNAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, UNAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no error in the JAB’s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant’s failure to report to work and holding of...

The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member’s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Decisions of UNSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The UNAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the UNRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/022.

After requesting additional findings of fact from the UNDT, the UNAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The UNAT found that the UNDT’s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The UNAT found problematic the fact that the UNDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The UNAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the UNDT but which it did not accept.

The UNAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

The UNAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The UNAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...