51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal against judgment No. UNDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. UNAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by UNDT no longer existed. UNAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s approach in considering the Appellant¡¯s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that it was not the function of UNDT or UNAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. UNAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in UNDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT held that UNDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. UNAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of UNDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the award by UNDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of UNAT. UNAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

UNAT held that UNDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.