UNAT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. UNDT/2011/106 and UNDT/2011/192. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant’s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant’s conduct was unwelcome. UNAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...
UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...
On the issue of the UNDT’s decision not to take up the Appellant’s motion for disclosure of documents, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore UNAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. UNAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...
UNAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; UNDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. UNAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...
On the Appellant’s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, UNAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. UNAT held that UNDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate’s eligibility was covered by...
UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before UNDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the UNDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. UNAT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. UNAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...
UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of UNAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years’ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. UNAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of UNAT’s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...
UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...
On the alleged procedural error of the UNDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, UNAT held that it was well within the competence of UNDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; UNAT dismissed this ground of appeal. UNAT held, affirming the finding of UNDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNDT failed to consider that UNHCR...
