51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT was not able to detect any errors in the UNDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of UNAT.

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by UNDT and by which UNDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got¡¯s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by UNDT, UNAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because UNDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in fact when it found that certain UNAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited UNAT precedents.

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that UNOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1008. UNAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/UNEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, UNAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the UNDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, UNAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. UNAT noted that UNDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

UNAT disagreed with UNDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General¡¯s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. UNAT firstly held that UNDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. UNAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

UNAT disagreed with UNRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. UNAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, UNAT also agreed with UNDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, UNAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, UNAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...