�ٱ���Ƶapp

The application was dismissed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing.  The UNRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT and upheld...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. UNDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant’s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The UNDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the UNDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

UNAT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. UNAT held that there was no reversible error on part of UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at UNODC. UNAT agreed with UNDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General’s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a “Message of the Day” was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. UNAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant’s contention, UNDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. UNAT found that UNDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. UNAT concurred with the former UN Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member’s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. UNAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the UNRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of UNRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...