¹ú²úAV

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT’s role to review...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

When the Applicant filled his PT8 form, he claimed daily subsistence allowance (DSA) for the period he would spend in Geneva for training purposes when he was fully aware that he was proceeding there to meet with an NGO or to have consultations with colleagues at HQ. As the purpose of his travel had changed he used funds earmarked for training for a different purpose without obtaining prior written authorisation. There was a note on his PT8 form that during January, the Applicant was on leave but this was not sufficient to absolve him. He received DSA for the period he was away from the...

Judicial Review is a supervisory jurisdiction. It is not a jurisdiction which a tribunal may exercise over itself. The former UNAT and the UNDT were and are creatures of statute. Each has the ability, inherent to all courts and tribunals, to imply powers to prevent abuses of process; however, the jurisdiction of each tribunal is limited by the provisions of its respective empowering statute. In the absence of specific jurisdiction conferred on a statutory tribunal by statute, the power to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction such as judicial review cannot be implied. This conclusion is...

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision’s purview and, therefore...

The Tribunal finds that the decision to summarily dismiss the applicant is not tainted by any irregularity, that the facts are established, that they amount to misconduct and that the sanction of summary dismissal is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. UNDT jurisdiction: The Tribunal has no power to compel a person external to the Organization to appear before it as a witness. Standard of review of disciplinary matters: In reviewing disciplinary matters, the Tribunal must examine whether the procedure followed was regular, whether the facts in question are established, whether...

Outcome: Application dismissed, but the applicant awarded USD500 in nominal compensation for not being informed in time.

The Tribunal observes that the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to take into consideration events post-dating 31 March 2010 and the decision not to allow him to rebut his performance appraisal became moot and it considers that he failed to show that he was still suffering any injury because of these reversed decisions. It further notes that the rebuttal process is still pending and it therefore rejects as premature the Applicant’s claims concerning the decision to apply ST/AI/2002/3 and the decision to carry out a single appraisal. It also rejects his claims of bad faith, abuse of...

The Tribunal found the application irreceivable on the basis that: (1) the decision of 28 April 2011 was not an appealable administrative decision; (2) the Tribunal was not competent to examine the legality of the subsequent decision on the Applicant’s eligibility for consideration for conversion because she did not request management evaluation of this decision; and (3) even assuming that the decision of 28 April 2011 was an administrative decision subject to appeal, it was merely a confirmative decision and the Applicant did not contest it within the mandatory time limits as the initial...

Based on the JAB recommendation, the Secretary-General had previously awarded the Applicant the amount of USD23,400 (three months net base salary) in compensation for an error in the consideration of her academic qualifications during the selection process. The Tribunal found that, in addition to the above-mentioned error, a number of substantial procedural irregularities had tainted the selection process, including the fact that the Senior Review Group had failed to pre-approve the evaluation criteria as required by ST/AI/2002/4 and met without having developed and published its own...