Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. UNAT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member¡¯s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. UNAT held that UNRWA...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. UNAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the UNDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, UNAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

UNAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-416. UNAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. UNAT held that it was not open to UNDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether UNDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, UNAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, UNDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, UNDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deeming the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was filed on time and was receivable. UNAT held that, since the parties agreed to and identified the facts in their Joint Statement, it was not open to UNDT to conduct its own evaluation and then to substitute its view for that of the parties. UNAT held that the misconduct was of a grave and serious nature and in those circumstances, the sanction of separation was reasonable and not disproportionate and/or arbitrary. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it reversed the Secretary-General¡¯s decision to...

UNAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that UNDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. UNAT held that UNDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. UNAT held that UNDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. UNAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or UNAT to conduct a fresh investigation. UNAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the UNAT RoP and no...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. UNAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before UNDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that pursuant to Article 30 UNAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. UNAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. UNAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had very thoroughly considered the...