UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.
UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT also affirmed UNDT’s application of the priority consideration...
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
UNAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that UNRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in fact in considering that UNRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. UNAT held that the decision by UNRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and...
UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was...
As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant’s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant’s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant’s Power of Attorney document, and...
The Appellant’s appeal primarily challenged the decision of UNDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. UNAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. UNAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant’s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. UNAT...
UNAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. UNAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration’s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. UNAT held that the contested...
UNAT held that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that UNDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, UNAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...
