Procedure (first instance and UNAT)

Mr. Moulana appealed the UNDT judgment.  

UNATnoted that the UNDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT, by failing to address the Appellant’s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant’s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the UNDT found he failed to provide.  Therefore...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The UNAT found that the facts suggest that the participant’s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant’s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing.  It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The UNAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the UNRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/022.

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing.  It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex. 

The UNAT found that the Appellant’s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable.  The UNAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member’s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT’s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member’s acts were sexual in nature.  The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat.  The UNAT held that the...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing.  It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The UNAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the UNDT but which it did not accept. 

The UNAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund).  It...

UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, UNAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint, UNAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the UNDT made no ruling on this...

The UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was problematic because the UNDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report.  The UNAT observed that the UNDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the UNDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The UNAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification.  Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.  Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...