51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. UNAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

UNAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules. UNAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between UNJSPF and CTBTO. UNAT...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that UNJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the UNJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. UNAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld UNJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJPSB decision.

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that UNDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. UNAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-134) on the UNDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, UNAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether UNDT erred in concluding...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute is alternative...

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

The Appellant requested that the UNDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to UNDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. UNAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. UNAT noted that, while UNDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP, UNDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before UNRWA DT to be non-receivable. UNAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before UNRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.