UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. UNAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge UNDT’s finding that there was no administrative decision within UNDT’s jurisdiction being contested. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against the judgment on the merits (UNDT/2011/054) and two further appeals by both the Secretary-General and the Applicant of the judgment on compensation (UNDT/2011/131). Relying on its previous holding in Bertucci (2011/UNAT/114), UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the Administration violated the Applicant’s due process rights, as no actual prejudice was found. UNAT held that the established facts, as admitted by the Applicant, clearly demonstrated that he engaged in the sexual harassment of local employees and used his position of...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.
UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. UNAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant’s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. UNAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before UNDT and held that UNDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant’s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. UNAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant’s reliance on erroneous advice...
UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly...
UNAT held that the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2011/080, UNAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request UNAT to order his reinstatement. UNAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that UNDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...
The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by UNDT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that there was no valid claim of unfair treatment and discrimination by the Appellant against the former Chief of ATS and UNDT therefore correctly limited its consideration to the interview process. UNAT held that the Appellant was merely repeating arguments that were adequately considered by UNDT and that there were no reasons to reverse UNDT’s judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Appellant contested the UNDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. UNAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal’s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. UNAT affirmed the UNDT finding that the Administration’s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...
UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the statement dated 26 November 2003 was neither a decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment nor a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the statement was merely a publicly stated opinion which had no legal consequences on the Appellant who, in addition to having already been informed on 29 October 2003 that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 November 2003, had also declared that he would not be able or willing to continue working for UNODC after his contract expired. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT...
