����AV

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. UNAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, UNAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the UNAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

UNAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have UNAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. UNAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having UNAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. UNAT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

UNAT affirmed the UNDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. UNAT also affirmed the UNDT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the UNDT judges. UNAT further rejected the staff member’s request that UNAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the UNAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to UN staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration’s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-UNAT-034. UNAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat’s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.