����AV

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s complaints to OAIS were not receivable because of her status as a former staff member of UNFPA. UNAT held that, as a former staff member of UNFPA, the Appellant had an entitlement to file a formal complaint with the Director of OAIS. UNAT held, however, that the Appellant’s opportunity to challenge OAIS’ findings had been forfeited by her failure to bring the communication of 31 March 2015 to the attention of UNDT, which she alleged to constitute evidence of the extension of the six months deadline for submitting her complain. UNAT held that, regarding the complaints filed by the Appellant on 29 November 2014 and 23 December 2014, respectively, against the UNFPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director, the communication of 31 March 2015 did no more than advise her that OAIS had no jurisdiction to investigate such complaints and that they would be referred to “another UN agency/Organisation for assessment and/or investigation”. UNAT held that nothing in UNDT’s judgment should be read as interfering with the suggested mechanism for the processing of the Appellant’s complaints against the UNFPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director. UNAT upheld the UNDT judgment, save that UNAT deemed that the UNDT judgment did not encompass the actions of OAIS in referring two of the Applicant’s complaints to another UN agency/Organisation, a referral that should be allowed to run its course.