51ÁÔÆæ

Outcome: The respondent is to pay interest from the date the payment of the relocation grant became due, namely 4 May 2008, and until payment at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d¡¯Ecriture et de Communication (¡°the Centre¡±), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not ¡°five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989¡±. These prerequisites did not...

Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Outcome: Held that a preponderance of evidence supports that the impugned changes were motivated by genuine organizational readjustments and were not influenced by any improper considerations. Held the preponderance of evidence established that the Organization had acted appropriately. Application dismissed.

The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.

UNDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. UNDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...

UNDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. UNDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity...

A judgment in which it is decided that the summary dismissal of the Applicant was wrongful calls for a rescission of the said sanction. The Applicant had a reasonable expectation that he would remain in service beyond the date of his wrongful summary dismissal. The Tribunal refuses the request that the Applicant ought to be compensated on a P5 scale and agrees with the Respondent¡¯s argument that such an award would be merely speculative. A summary dismissal is the most severe sanction that the Respondent may impose on a staff member for serious misconduct. Judicial notice is taken of the fact...

In this case the initial inquiry was inadequate and affected by bias. Outcome: Applicant awarded USD20,000 for breach of contractual right. Parties directed to make submissions as to whether ST/AI/371 is still operative or has been implicitly appealed by ST/SGB/2009/7. Further hearing to decide as to whether USG¡¯s conduct should be referred to the SG for possible action to enforce accountability pursuant to art 10.8 of the UNDT Statute.

There may be cases that take longer to be heard by the UNDT and that this may provide a reason justifying compensation beyond the two-year limit. This was such a case. Compensation in lieu of rescission was set at two years and 2 months¡¯ net-base salary. The Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation was excessive. It equated to over 13 years of net-base salary plus payment of a number of entitlements. Apart from being well outside the scope of compensation that might properly be ordered by the Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim was predicated on the mistaken belief that but for the unlawful dismissal he...