51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

UNAT considered all arguments made on appeal. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in UNDT¡¯s findings. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. UNAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

UNAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, UNAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. UNAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. UNAT found that there was no basis for UNDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± UNAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. UNAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. UNAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as UNDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

UNAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding UNAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the UNDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. UNAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

UNAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that UNAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed 51ÁÔÆæ the said directive. UNAT also agreed with UNDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. UNAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that while only final judgments of the UNDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. UNAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute UNDT exceeding its jurisdiction. UNAT further noted that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. UNAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the UNDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. UNAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

UNAT affirmed the findings of UNDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. UNAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that, contrary to the findings by UNDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, UNAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. UNAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure gives UNDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by UNDT was...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT also found no fault with UNDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. UNAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

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...