51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the 51³Ô¹Ï Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. UNAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge UNDT’s finding that there was no administrative decision within UNDT’s jurisdiction being contested. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration’s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. UNAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant’s written or oral submissions to persuade UNAT that UNDT made any error of law or fact in...

UNAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that UNRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. UNAT...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office’s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. UNDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. UNDT/2013/101. UNAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. UNAT found that UNDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng’s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng’s performance appraisal. UNAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer’s comment on Mr Ngokeng’s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on receivability. UNAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s refusal to...