51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure¡¯s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration¡¯s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the non-selection of the Appellant was not vitiated by any improper motive. UNAT noted that, even if the alleged flaws were to be considered irregularities, they would not be important enough to render the proceedings null or to reflect a violation of rights and actual harm or discrimination suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that no compensation should be awarded to the Appellant, as no illegality or breach of...

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 preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, UNAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. UNAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of UNDT and found no basis for disagreeing with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, UNAT held that UNDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. UNAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin UNDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...

UNAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-416. UNAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. UNAT held that it was not open to UNDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of UNDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, UNAT held that UNAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the UNDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. UNAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, UNDT. UNAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the issue for UNDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. UNAT held that the issues of...

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that UNDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, UNAT held there was merit to the appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by UNDT. UNAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. UNAT granted the appeal in...