51�Թ�

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, “OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said’s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the UNAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The UNAT further held that the staff member’s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT.

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...

The UNAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member’s application was not receivable. In particular, the UNAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the UNAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

Mr. Bwalya appealed.

The UNAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the UNDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a UNDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from UNDP’s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

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...

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The UNAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The UNAT found that the staff member’s due...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant’s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant’s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...