51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT accepted the Secretary-General¡¯s position that UNMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the UNMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. UNAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. UNAT held that the change in the composition of the...

UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, which was limited to a challenge of UNDT¡¯s method of calculating the compensation awarded to Mr Nyasulu as an alternative to the rescission. UNAT noted that Mr Nyasulu presumably had no objection to the compensation being re-calculated, as he did not rebut the appeal. UNAT found that it had no option but to remand the case as, in order to rule on the Secretary-General¡¯s request, it would first need to be satisfied that UNDT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission was not correct. UNAT held that that could not be done because UNDT gave...

UNAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. UNAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. UNAT...

On the delay before UNDT, UNAT agreed that the delay was unfortUNATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that UNDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. UNAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which UNDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. UNAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

Contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.