51ÁÔÆæ

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...

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 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 the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. UNAT found that UNDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. UNAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. UNAT found that UNDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

UNAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the UNRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. UNAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the UNRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. UNAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

UNAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether UNDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. UNAT was satisfied that the evidence before UNDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. UNAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

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.

UNAT acknowledged that while the Appellant was eligible for a permanent appointment, the Administration was entitled to have regard to the fact that she was recruited because she was a national of Romania for the specific post in UNIC Bucharest. UNAT noted that both the Department of Public Information and the Officer-in-Charge of Human Resources Services previously anticipated that UNIC Bucharest, among others, was scheduled to close in the very near future, due to the uncertainty of the funding by the host country, on which the continuation of the Appellant¡¯s post depended. UNAT noted that...