51³Ô¹Ï

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 held that UNDT was correct in finding that the statement dated 26 November 2003 was neither a decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment nor a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the statement was merely a publicly stated opinion which had no legal consequences on the Appellant who, in addition to having already been informed on 29 October 2003 that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 November 2003, had also declared that he would not be able or willing to continue working for UNODC after his contract expired. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT...

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte’s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. UNAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. UNAT held that the Secretary-General was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. UNAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because UNDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years’ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba’s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. UNAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year’s net base salary. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

UNAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that UNDT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on UNDT’s part. UNAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with UNDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT’s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

UNAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. UNDT/2012/142. UNAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain’s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. UNAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. UNAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. UNAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.