The Administration paid the compensation ordered by UNDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging UNDT’s decision to award compensation. UNAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the UNDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.
In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the UN or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant’s allegations. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the UN, nor was the Organisation aware of the...
The Appellant contested the UNDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. UNAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal’s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. UNAT affirmed the UNDT finding that the Administration’s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...
UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on...
UNAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by UNDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of UNFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the UNFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly declined to accept...
UNAT held that concern about a high-level manager’s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. UNAT noted that it was well within the discretion of UNDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. UNAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. UNAT held there was no merit in...
UNAT held that the UNDT’s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the UNFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to UNFPA. UNAT rejected UNDT’s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant’s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. UNAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...
UNAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2014/061. On the Appellant’s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant’s motion requesting UNAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, UNAT denied the motion. On the Appellant’s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), UNAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...
