51ÁÔÆæ

In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the UN or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the UN, nor was the Organisation aware of the...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. UNAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in law...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. UNAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-UNAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than UNAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. UNAT also found that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. UNAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

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 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 Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Cabrera¡¯s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...

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 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...

UNAT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, regarding whether UNDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. UNAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. UNAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. UNAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. UNAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...

The Secretary-General appealed and Mr Marsh filed a cross-appeal, challenging the legality of the interview process and the compensation award. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found that the records showed a proper and professional proceeding during the interviews and the report of its outcome was based on evaluations objectively motivated, and Mr Marsh was accorded the objective consideration and equal treatment to which all candidates are entitled. With respect to the second issue, UNAT noted that not every violation of due process will necessarily lead to an award of compensation...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, UNDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. UNAT found that UNDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

UNAT considered an appeal, in which the Appellant claimed that UNDT committed procedural errors in allowing the Secretary-General to embark on a de novo fact-finding inquiry and that the disciplinary measure of separation was disproportionate. UNAT held that it was within the competence of UNDT to hold oral hearings as well as to order the production of evidence for fair and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred and...

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 noted that UNDT correctly stated that the former UN Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant¡¯s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. UNAT also noted that UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. UNAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the UNDT¡¯s decision and financial award. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision...

UNAT considered Ms Worsley¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA¡¯s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. UNAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA¡¯s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that UNDT previously considered in its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.