Â鶹APP

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 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 held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. UNAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. UNAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled that UNAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. UNAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (UNDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (UNDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. UNAT considered whether UNDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that UNDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. UNAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s challenge which related to the comments of...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT...

UNAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...