51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. UNAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. UNAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months¡¯ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. UNAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. UNAT held that UNDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. UNAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the UNDT. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the UNDT. UNAT...

UNAT affirmed the decision of UNDT that the Appellant¡¯s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. UNAT concurred with the former UN Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the UNOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the UNDT and was therefore not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s approach in considering the Appellant¡¯s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that it was not the function of UNDT or UNAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. UNAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in UNDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.