51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. UNAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in law...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

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...

UNAT noted that UNDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, UNAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

The Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Cabrera¡¯s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (UNDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (UNDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/UNAT/114), UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. UNAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.

The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by UNDT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly...

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. UNAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. UNAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before UNDT and held that UNDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. UNAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...