Â鶹APP

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. UNAT also affirmed UNDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, UNAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, UNAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, UNAT held...

UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, UNAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of UNRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

UNAT held that while the UNRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. UNAT held that the fact that UNRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the UNRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that...