Â鶹APP

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT¡¯s conclusion. UNAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. UNAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. UNAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by UNAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. UNAT found that UNDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT found no error in the UNDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-604 (Ocokoru). UNAT noted that in judgment 2015-UNAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the UNDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the execution of the UNDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of UNDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. UNAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. UNAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. UNAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

UNAT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the UNAT judgment. UNAT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. UNAT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon¡¯s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had...

UNAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of UNJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, UNAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. UNAT further...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. UNAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. UNAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

UNAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before UNDT was still pending. UNAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.