UNAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before UNDT was still pending. UNAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.
UNAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of UNJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, UNAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. UNAT further...
UNAT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the UNAT judgment. UNAT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. UNAT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon’s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...
UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. UNAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP’s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. UNAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe’s separate...
The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-604 (Ocokoru). UNAT noted that in judgment 2015-UNAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the UNDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the execution of the UNDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of UNDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. UNAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the UNAT Statute...
UNAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by UNAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. UNAT found that UNDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...
UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, UNAT agreed with the finding of UNRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. UNAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the UNAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. UNAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. UNAT accordingly rejected the Appellant’s request for compensation. UNAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...
