Â鶹APP

UNAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. UNDT/2012/116. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision. UNAT noted that even if the UNDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the UNDT...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of UNAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. UNAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of UNAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-158. UNAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. UNAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. UNAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade UNAT that UNDT made any error of law or fact in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. UNAT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. UNAT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah¡¯s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years¡¯ further service. UNAT...

UNAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that UNRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. UNAT...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

UNAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/034 and UNDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, UNAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that UNDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, UNAT upheld the finding of UNDT. UNAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. UNAT held that Ms Perelli was...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, UNAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. UNAT held that UNDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. UNDT/2011/106 and UNDT/2011/192. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. UNAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. UNAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by UNDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. UNAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the UNDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on UNDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. UNAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. UNAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, UNDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

To the extent that the UNDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, UNAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, UNAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which UNDT granted the withdrawal request. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. UNAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

UNAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. UNAT held that UNDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the determination made by the Programme OiC, namely that the application for sabbatical leave should not be forwarded to the Committee, was not within the Programme OiC¡¯s power. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the decision made by the Programme OiC was in breach of the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment ¡°specifically, his right to have his application forwarded to the Committee and the [Assistant Secretary-General], OHRM¡±. UNAT held that UNDT had properly observed that an ¡°incomplete application may therefore be one which is missing...

UNAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that UNDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, UNAT found that UNDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. UNAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, UNAT held that UNDT did not...