51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. UNAT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. UNAT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, UNAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. UNAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member’s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO’s personnel instruction should have led to a...

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant’s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the order of UNRWA DT to rescind the contested...

UNAT considered the appeal by the UNRWA Commissioner-General. UNAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member’s complaints. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. UNAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA’s decision not to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. UNAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant’s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, UNAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. UNAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT’s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT’s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT’s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General’s reply...