51ÁÔÆæ

The staff member appealed on the ground that UNDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. UNAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, UNAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by UNDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. UNAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the UNDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

UNAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. UNAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

UNAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.

UNAT considered Mr Paskolti¡¯s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years¡¯ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. UNAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...