����AV

UNAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant’s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

On the Applicant’s claim that UNDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, UNAT held that UNDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. UNAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. UNAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and the party applying for revision. UNAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the UN Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the UNJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT judgment was defective or that the UNDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of UNDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, UNAT held that UNDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. UNAT held...

UNAT made several findings on the appeal. First, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. UNAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. UNAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, UNAT disagreed with...

UNAT first agreed with the UNDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, UNAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member’s appointment. The staff member’s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a “dry cut.” A “dry cut” happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

UNAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however UNAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because UNAT did not detect any error in the UNRWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, UNAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the UNRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

UNAT held that UNDT’s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that UNOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal’s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by UNDT and by which UNDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got’s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by UNDT, UNAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.