51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. UNAT held that UNDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. UNAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the UNDT. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the UNDT. UNAT...

UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

UNAT held that UNDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, UNDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. UNAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. UNAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. UNAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the UN outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. UNAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the UNDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. UNAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that UNDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s approach in considering the Appellant¡¯s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that it was not the function of UNDT or UNAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. UNAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in UNDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT held that UNDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. UNAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of UNDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the award by UNDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.

UNAT considered appeals against UNDT judgment Nos. UNDT/2010/108 and UNDT/2010/109 jointly. UNAT held that UNDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. UNAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

UNAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the UNJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. UNAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. UNAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the UNJSPB was...

UNAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. UNAT noted that, as UNDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. UNAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. UNAT found no error in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

UNAT held that, in order for the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and UNAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of UNDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. UNAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. UNAT held that the need for translator services at UNAMI could...

UNAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. UNAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. UNAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. UNAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. UNAT held that UNDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. UNAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

UNAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where UNDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to UNDT having stepped into the shoes of the UN Medical Director. UNAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of UNDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. UNAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...