UNAT held that UNDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a de novo review.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. UNAT held that the Administration applied UNICEF’s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi’s favour. UNAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered – or even favoured for reasons of gender – in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by UNICEF during the selection process. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. UNAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. UNAT held that UNDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. UNAT held that UNDT committed...
UNAT was not persuaded that UNDT erred in its judgment. UNAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to UNDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the UNDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. UNAT held that the settlement...
The staff member appealed on the ground that UNDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. UNAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, UNAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by UNDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. UNAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the UNDT’s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.
UNAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. UNAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.
UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration’s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General’s...
UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.
UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.
Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.
