51ÁÔÆæ

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ¡®Final judgment of dissolution of marriage¡¯. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. UNAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding UNDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-096). UNAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded UNDT from awarding any compensation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member. UNAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. UNAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant UNAT¡¯s intervention. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the UNAT RoP. UNAT noted that, although not all allegations of misconduct against Mr Masri were proved, some of the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. UNAT held that the evidence established that Mr Masri met vendors at his home outside working hours and discussed UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) contracts, he received the benefit of interest-free loans from two vendors, and he gave assistance to a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, UNAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. UNAT vacated the part of the UNDT judgment awarding compensation.

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the UNDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. UNAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. UNAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before UNDT and the reasons for UNDT dismissing his appeal were valid. UNAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. UNAT rejected the appeal.