51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules. UNAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between UNJSPF and CTBTO. UNAT...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that UNJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the UNJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. UNAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld UNJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJPSB decision.

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute is alternative...

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that UNDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. UNAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-134) on the UNDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, UNAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether UNDT erred in concluding...

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

UNAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether UNDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. UNAT was satisfied that the evidence before UNDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. UNAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

UNAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. UNAT found that UNDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. UNAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. UNAT found that UNDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...