51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2014/007. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of UNDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for UNDT, UNAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and UNAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by UNAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law when it found UNICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT did not accord any deference to UNICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, UNDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. UNAT held that UNDT made...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as UNDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. UNAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. UNAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. UNAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. UNAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. UNAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before UNDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. UNAT held that UNDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify UNAT¡¯s...