51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. UNAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. UNAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. UNAT held that UNDT should neither have rescinded the...

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, UNAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. UNAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the UNDT...

On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

UNAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. UNAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

UNAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the UNDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the UNDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, UNAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before UNAT. UNAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB¡¯s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, UNAT held that UNDT did...

UNAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, UNDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. UNAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of UNAT. UNAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

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...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.

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...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

The fact that OSLA counsel have fulfilled in the past other functions within the Organization does not generally disqualify them from discharging their new duties. Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

UNDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. UNDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...