Judge Ziadé
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.
The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant’s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...
L’UNAT a rejeté la demande d’audience de l’appelant, estimant que les questions étaient bien définies et ne nécessitaient pas de développement supplémentaire au cours d’une audience.
L'UNAT a estimé que la demande du requérant visant à réexaminer la réponse à sa demande de contrôle hiérarchique concernant sa non-sélection n'était pas recevable ratione materiae car elle n'avait pas produit de conséquences juridiques directes pour lui et ne constituait donc pas une décision administrative susceptible de recours.
L'UNAT a également constaté que le requérant avait été informé du résultat de sa...
L'UNAT a examiné un appel interjeté par le fonctionnaire.
L'UNAT a constaté que le fonctionnaire n'avait cité aucune disposition de l'article 2(1) du Statut de l'UNAT et n'avait pas indiqué si des erreurs commises par le DT de l'UNRWA dans son affaire concernaient sa compétence, la procédure, une question de droit ou une question de fait. L'UNAT a estimé que le recours était vicié et, par conséquent, irrecevable.
L'UNAT a néanmoins réitéré sa jurisprudence sur certaines des questions soulevées et a approuvé la manière dont le DT de l'UNRWA avait déterminé le montant de l'indemnisation en...
The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.
The UNAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the UNRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The UNAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.
The UNAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the UNRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The UNAT also agreed with the UNRWA DT’s...
The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.
The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.
The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...
The UNAT held that the UNDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration’s conclusion that the staff member’s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board’s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the UNAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management’s prior informal evaluation of the staff member’s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...