51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, UNAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT¡¯s approach. UNAT supported UNDT¡¯s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. UNAT suggested that UNDT and the Registries...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. UNAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi¡¯s...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. UNAT held that the UNDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. UNAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

UNAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO¡¯s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the UNDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before UNDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. UNAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT erred in...

UNAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. UNAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to UNMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment.