51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the evidence adduced by the respondent did not sufficiently support the charge that the applicant had not paid for three tickets issued to him by MCM and that, accordingly, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt in respect of this charge. About the applicant¡¯s unauthorized absences from the mission area, the Tribunal held that, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, a dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and that a written censure would be an appropriate measure. The Tribunal found that the applicant¡¯s due process rights had...

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate¡¯s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s competence to substitute the Administration¡¯s decision to select between suitable candidates.

Economic loss: Since the applicant was due to retire at the time the selection would have been made, his economic loss was the value of the salary and emoluments of an ASG, without any adjustment for the receipt of entitlements as a D-2 Director, which is a simple calculation of the gross earnings minus deductions, plus the respondent¡¯s subsidy contributions. Any actual income he made is adjusted against this amount. Pension: The pension calculation is more difficult. Two methods of calculation are open as the Pension Fund has stated it will not recalculate the applicant¡¯s pension: the first...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against UNDT Orders. UNAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. UNAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of UNDT in the management of cases. Further, UNAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before UNDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that when the new system was created, UNDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. UNAT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. UNAT held that the requirement for UN Office at Nairobi (UNON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation¡¯s staff medical insurance plan. UNAT held that this requirement was of general...

The Secretary-General claimed that UNDT had no power to award interest. UNAT found that both UNDT and UNAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

UNAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. UNAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, UNAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

UNAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, UNDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. UNAT held that UNDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. UNAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. UNAT held, therefore, that the UNDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to UNDT to be heard afresh.

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. UNAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...

UNAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2010/038. UNAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. UNAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by UNDT. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2010/038, UNAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...