UNAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. UNAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. UNAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.
UNAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, UNDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by UNDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. UNAT noted that the impugned judgment followed UNAT’s jurisprudence, but UNDT’s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that due...
Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, UNAT granted the motion. UNAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the UNDT judgment remained in force.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by UNDT of three months’ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun’s career prospects. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun’s separation from service. UNAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...
With respect to the Appellant’s first claim, UNAT agreed with UNDT’s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, UNAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. UNAT agreed with UNDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant’s post was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT...
The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.
As the Applicant withdrew claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.
