51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. UNAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that UNDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. UNAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the UNDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by UNDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging UNDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. UNAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the UNDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.

UNAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the UNDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. UNDT/2009/052) in her request for UNDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the UNDT Statute could not be disregarded. UNAT approved judgment No. UNDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of UNDT in Rosca. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and upheld UNDT¡¯s judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by UNDT. UNAT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that UNDT erred when it decided to give UNHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. UNAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the UNDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). UNAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

UNAT affirmed the UNDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. UNAT also affirmed the UNDT judgments rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the UNDT judges. UNAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s request that UNAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the UNAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

UNAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. UNAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. UNAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals against UNDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. UNAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute authorizes UNDT to order suspension of a contested decision only ¡°during the pendency of the management evaluation¡±. UNAT found that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, UNAT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the UNJSPF Regulations. However, UNAT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant¡¯s request. UNAT rescinded the Standing Committee¡¯s decision and remanded the Appellant¡¯s request to the Standing Committee for review.