51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

he Tribunal rescinded the decision not to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment and ordered the Respondent to grant the Applicant a continuing appointment retroactively from 7 June 2014. As the contested decision concerned a question of appointment, the Respondent was given the alternative option of paying the Applicant USD5,000 in compensation. The Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages was rejected.

After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

he second case was filed to address the Respondent¡¯s contention that the first case was not receivable. The UNDT found that the Applicant was not required to seek management evaluation since the impugned decision followed the completion of a disciplinary process. Pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the UNDT Statute, the Applicant was required to file his application with the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of notification of the contested decision. The Applicant, however, first sought management evaluation and subsequently missed the 90-day deadline for filing with the UNDT. The UNDT found...

The UNDT found that MINUSTAH erred when it excluded the Applicant from the comparative review process. The UNDT found that process should have included all staff for all available posts at the Mission after retrenchment, which was not done in this case. The UNDT found that the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached in that she was not reviewed by the comparative review panel against all the remaining posts in the new mission structure. The UNDT found, however, that the Applicant¡¯s contract expired and was not terminated. The UNDT found that the decision to separate the Applicant was lawful since it...

The UNDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The UNDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The UNDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

The Applicant requests revision of UNDT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.

How to measure a loss of change. The Tribunal finds that, as stated in Niedermayr, the assessment of loss of chance is an inexact science, and the Tribunal must assess the matter in the round and arrive at a figure deemed to be fair and equitable having regard to the number of imponderables present in the case, including the chances of being selected. The Tribunal should take into account two matters: (a) the nature of the irregularity and (b), thereafter in the assessment, all the imponderables, noting all the while that this is an inexact science (Niedermayr). The Tribunal notes the...

No legal implementation of an expired decision: The Tribunal underlines that, after its expiration a decision cannot any longer produce legal effects and therefore cannot be implemented and / or extended and that any such action constitutes itself a breach of procedural fairness.

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant¡¯s property. In particular, there was no requirement...