51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT also affirmed UNDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

UNAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, UNAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, UNAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, UNAT held...

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, UNAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of UNRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...

UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of UNDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. UNAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. UNAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. UNAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. UNAT held that the contested...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that UNDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, UNAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...