51ÁÔÆæ

Request for review: The Administration should not be excessively formalistic and demand that for a request for review to be considered as such, it must necessarily be addressed to the Secretary-General. However, such a request must be formulated in sufficiently clear terms to be regarded by its addressee as a formal request for review¡ªthat is, as the first compulsory step initiating the appeals procedure provided for by former staff rule 111.2(a)¡ªwhich s/he must then forward to the Secretary-General. Exceptional circumstances/duty to inform staff members: There is no provision requiring the...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. UNAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former UN Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. UNAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the former UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, UNAT held that UNDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, UNAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. UNAT held that the award...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. UNAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. UNAT held that UNDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. UNAT held that UNDT committed...

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by UNON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by UNON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

UNAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT¡¯s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...

UNAT considered an appeal against judgment No. UNDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. UNAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by UNDT no longer existed. UNAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. UNAT held that UNDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNDT made any errors of...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. UNAT held that it had no reason to disagree with UNDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. UNAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

UNAT was not persuaded that UNDT erred in its judgment. UNAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to UNDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the UNDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. UNAT held that the settlement...

UNAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. UNAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. UNAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. UNAT...

UNAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before UNAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

UNAT held that the UNDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. UNAT stated the principle that UNDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes UNDT¡¯s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request UNDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. UNAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. UNAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

UNAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the UN, through UNAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by UNAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. UNAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. UNAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the UN, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

The Appellant appealed the amount of compensation awarded for loss of chance. UNAT noted that there was no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case turned on its facts. UNAT noted that it would generally defer to the trial court¡¯s discretion. UNAT did not accept the Appellant¡¯s argument that the trial court was required to assess the percentage chances that he would have been selected: UNAT held that while it had approved that procedure as one method of assessing damages, it respected the opinion of the trial judge as to how to determine...

UNAT noted that the reason given for the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was a restructuring and that the Appellant conceded that the restructuring was properly done. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the opinion expressed by the Appellant¡¯s Chief, that his performance deficiencies and shortcomings could justify the non-renewal of his contract, was immaterial. UNAT held that the Administration provided the Appellant with legitimate reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2010/061 on compensation. UNAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. UNAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. UNAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.