Judge Sandhu
Mr. Moulana appealed the UNDT judgment.
UNATnoted that the UNDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT, by failing to address the Appellant’s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant’s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the UNDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury’s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the UNDT was not receivable ratione materiae.
The...
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...
M. Jibril a fait appel.
En ce qui concerne la demande d'audience, l'UNAT a estimé que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulevées par cet appel avaient déjà été clairement définies par les parties et qu'il n'était pas nécessaire de fournir des éclaircissements supplémentaires. De plus, une audience ne contribuerait pas à régler l’affaire de manière rapide et équitable, comme l’exige l’article 18(1) du Règlement intérieur du TANU. En conséquence, la demande d'audience est rejetée.
L'UNAT a convenu avec le DT de l'UNRWA que la décision administrative contestée de placer M. Jibril en congé...
Mr. Jibril appealed.
As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.
The UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...
L'UNAT a examiné un appel de M. Dorji.
L'UNAT a estimé que l'appel était défectueux dans la mesure où il n'avait identifié aucun des cinq moyens d'appel énoncés à l'article 2(1) du Statut comme constituant la base juridique de l'appel. Comme le TCNU l'a estimé à juste titre, la démission forcée alléguée de M. Dorji et sa séparation ultérieure de l'Organisation ont eu lieu en mars et avril 2019. La demande de contr?le hiérarchique de M. Dorji a été déposée en dehors du délai légal de 60 jours de plus de deux ans, le 25 juin 2021.
L'UNAT a rejeté l'appel et a confirmé le jugement n° UNDT/2021...
The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.
The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...
UNAT held that Mr. Saleh’s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the UNDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the UNDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the UNDT.
UNAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. UNAT then held that Mr. Saleh’s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the UNDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...
The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT Judgment.
The UNAT found that the UNDT failed to address OAI’s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje’s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The UNDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report’s evidence of them.
Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between UNDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...
UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, UNAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.
However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint, UNAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the UNDT made no ruling on this...
UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.
UNAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj’s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) […] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...
The crucial question on appeal was whether the UNDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of UNICEF. The UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The UNDT’s legal approach was correct. The UNDT decided not to refer the ED of UNICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...
La première conclusion du Tribunal d'appel est que le Tribunal a eu raison de considérer que l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement n'est pas en conflit avec l'article 3.19(g) du Règlement du personnel et que, par conséquent, les deux ensembles de dispositions doivent être interprétés ensemble de manière cohérente. .
Nous jugeons également correct le raisonnement du TDNU selon lequel l'application de l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement du PNUD n'est pas limitée aux membres du personnel du PNUD, car elle cherche à rapprocher les paiements effectués aux membres du personnel...
The Appeals Tribunal’s first finding is that the UNDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.
We also find correct the UNDT’s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the UNDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to UNDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a UNDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...
The UNAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.
It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B’s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the UNRWA DT did he point out any...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against UNRWA Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.
UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The UNRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and UNAT found no reason to differ from them. UNAT shared the UNRWA DT’s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...
The UNAT first concluded that the UNDT erred by failing to specify whether the alleged misconduct of sexual exploitation had been established to the required evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. Second, the UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in concluding that the victim was a vulnerable person, that Mr. Stefan was aware of her vulnerability, and that he sexually exploited her vulnerability. The UNAT held that the UNDT erred when it made this finding without any independent or medical evidence, and that the UNDT had relied on its own Internet research regarding various...
The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The UNDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of “relevant work experience” in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications. By doing so, the UNDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The UNAT held that this was a policy...
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 Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the UNRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.
The UNAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency’s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant’s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...