51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. UNAT held that UNDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. UNAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. UNAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. UNAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. UNAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with UNDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before UNDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how UNDT erred in...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. UNAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. UNAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076) and Wu (2010-UNAT-042), UNAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. UNAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. UNAT also noted...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. UNDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., UNDT. UNAT held that to that extent, the UNAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

UNAT considered an appeal against UNDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to UNDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that UNDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by UNHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from UNHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. UNAT upheld the appeal and reversed the UNDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.