¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the UNDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. UNAT stated the principle that UNDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes UNDT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request UNDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-UNAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-UNAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-UNAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members’ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. UNAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the UNJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of UNJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF in the administration of its staff. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the UNJSPF’s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner’s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...