51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT had before it an appeal against both UNDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and UNDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the UNDT and certain conduct by the UNDT and its Registrar. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the UNDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. UNAT held that the only proper course for UNDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/111 (UNAT Case No. 2016-964) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-969). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. UNAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

On the issue of UNDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. UNAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the UNAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. UNAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by UNDT...

UNAT considered an application to UNAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. UNAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a UNAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, UNAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. UNAT held that, absent a successful...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with UNRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. UNAT directed the Registrar to close the case.