51ÁÔÆæ

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 configured 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...

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. UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal against UNDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that UNDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/113 (UNAT Case No. 2016-972) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-973). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/111 (UNAT Case No. 2016-964) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-969). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

On the issue of UNDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. UNAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the UNAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. UNAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by UNDT...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant¡¯s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, UNAT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the...

UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was...