¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration was not legally allowed to consider seniority or career advancement in the selection process. UNAT held that it was entirely proper to make a choice between two recommended candidates based partly on their respective seniority and time already served at a particular grade. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in essentially reversing the burden of proof by requiring the Secretary-General to show that the factors considered were explicitly provided for in the legal framework rather...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. UNAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision.  UNAT dismissed the application. UNAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, UNAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. UNAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

UNAT granted the appeal in part. UNAT held that UNDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. UNAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that UNDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the UNDT’s findings on compensation for moral...

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration’s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

UNAT held that UNDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division’s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, UNAT agreed with UNDT that it would have been...

UNAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. UNAT noted that, as UNDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. UNAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. UNAT found no error in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the UNDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which UNAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT affirmed the UNDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

UNAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and UNDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in affirming the JAB’s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNAT held that UNDT’s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

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...