¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons’ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.

UNAT held that it was clear from the record that UNDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. UNAT held that UNDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. UNAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the UNDT for a rehearing de...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, UNAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant’s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. UNAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, UNAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While UNAT found that it was reasonable for the UNDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the UNDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years’ net base salary. UNAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The UNDT did not err in deciding that Ms. Xing’s candidacy was given a full and fair consideration, in finding that the administrative instruction on gender parity (ST/AI/1999/9) did not apply in this case, and in not granting Ms. Xing’s request to amend her application. The UNDT has not been shown to have erred in requiring credible evidence of a clear and compelling nature of Ms. Xing’s allegations of ulterior motives, which was absent.

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant’s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

This judgment is confined to whether the applicant should have access to the report. The applicant was ordered be given access to the panel’s report, subject to an undertaking of confidentiality.

The Applicant was not considered in accordance with ST/AI/2006/3 as was his legal right.