UNDT/2019/016

UNDT/2019/016, Nikolarakis

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant’s Counsel did not know about the Applicant’s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant’s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the Respondent, even though from the circumstances it is clear that the pertinent information was not within the knowledge of counsel for the Respondent, but the Administration at large. The Tribunal decided to reject the application for revision. The Tribunal also invited the parties to file a joint motion stating whether they have settled the matter amicably or make submissions on liability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Respondent filed an application for revision of judgment UNDT/2017/068 (Nikolarakis) on relief, contending that certain decisive facts were unknown to the Tribunal and Counsel for the Respondent when the Judgment was rendered. The contention in this case is the quantum of compensation which was set by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that contrary to the submissions made and evidence adduced at the hearing in the main case on 4 April 2017, a selection exercise for thirteen S-3 positions took place pursuant to a job opening issued on 21 April 2017, following which the Applicant was appointed to an S-3 level position on 29 March 2018. The Respondent argued that these are facts warranting a revision of the judgment on compensation to lower it.

Legal Principle(s)

Knowledge of relevant facts by a party can legitimately be imputed to their legal representative.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application rejected but parties invited to settle

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Nikolarakis

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :