2012-UNAT-213, Squassoni
UNAT held that UNDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. UNAT noted that UNDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. UNAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-UNAT-078) and held that UNDT correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims regarding her return to her G-4 post were not receivable. UNAT held that this conclusion rendered moot the Applicant’s petition to produce new evidence, which was not in compliance with the strict statutory limits to allow that kind of application. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decisions to return her to her former G-4 post, after not being selected for two G-5 posts, and to award her compensation in the amount of six months’ net base salary. UNAT dismissed her application, finding that the decision to return her to her former post was the direct and logical consequence of her non-selection for the G-5 posts and that her compensation was adequate.
Without regard to the procedural regularity or irregularity of the UNDT’s Orders related to the scope of the parties’ submissions, there are no grounds to consider that the claimant’s right to due process was violated by a judgment by default or for not considering her arguments.