¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. UNAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that the matter under investigation was closed and the Appellant had not presented any cogent argument to show that there were exceptional circumstances that might otherwise have entitled him to the investigation report. UNAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to receive a detailed copy of the investigation report. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the argument that UNDT erred on questions of law and fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/028, UNDT/2013/029 and UNDT/2013/076). UNAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. UNAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that UNDT is competent to review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. UNAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, UNAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. UNAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member’s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO’s personnel instruction should have led to a...

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant’s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the order of UNRWA DT to rescind the contested...