Article 2.10

The UNAT noted that in this case, the JAB made not a decision, but rather a recommendation to the Registrar of the ITLOS, who in turn, purported to make the decision about Mr. Savadogo’s appeal. The UNAT recognized that the ITLOS changed and consolidated the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules so that the JAB now makes decisions (from which appeals may be brought to the UNAT) rather than, as occurred in this case, recommendations to the Registrar of the ITLOS, which the Registrar may or may not accept. However, this amendment came too late for the parties in this case. Thus, the original...

The UNAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process. It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the UNDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did. It concluded that the Appeals Board’s...

The UNAT held that the JAB made considerable internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the JAB no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ISA Secretary-General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.

The UNAT found that the plain reading of the facts left no doubt that: i) at the time when the contested decision was taken, there was no willingness of abandonment of post by the Appellant; ii) despite his poor mental health condition that was medically...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute and therefore UNAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, UNAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was no error in the JAB’s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant’s failure to report to work and holding of...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. UNAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abed v. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, UNAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

UNAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. UNAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, UNAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

UNAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., UNDT. UNAT held that to that extent, the UNAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...