UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.
Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.
UNAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and UNDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in affirming the JAB’s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNAT held that UNDT’s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...
UNAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/034 and UNDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, UNAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that UNDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, UNAT upheld the finding of UNDT. UNAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. UNAT held that Ms Perelli was...
UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons’ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.
UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...
UNAT held that the Appellant’s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, UNAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant’s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. UNAT held that UNDT...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. UNAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, UNAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While UNAT found that it was reasonable for the UNDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the UNDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years’ net base salary. UNAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.
