¹ú²úAV

The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant damages equivalent to three months’ net base salary at the P-3 level. The compensation shall bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date this Judgment becomes executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent shall be applied to the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment becomes executable.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly pointed out that the only remedy requested by the staff member in his application to the UNDT was the rescission of the administrative decision not to transfer him. Only now on appeal does the staff member raise other claims and additionally requests payment of all salaries and benefits from the date of termination to the date of the UNAT Judgment, including pension benefits and compensation for the material and moral harm inflicted on him, caused by harassment, mistreatment, and unlawful termination. His new requests on appeal cannot be accepted by the...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant’s objection to General Assembly’s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

Scope of judicial review In a remanded case, such as the instant one, the Applicant may not expand the scope of claims for remedies contained in her original application and, as such, the Tribunal will not consider her new claims or arguments unless they are essentially related to her original claim in the application. Whether and to what extent the Applicant is entitled to remedies The Appeals Tribunal found in Banaj 2022-UNAT-1202 (see para. 1) that the temporary removal from the Applicant, and reassignment to others, of certain of her functions as Head of UNODC in Albania, was an unlawful...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that Ms. Caucci’s situation differed from the UNDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (UNDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the UNDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. UNAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. UNAT held that UNDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. UNAT held that UNAT’s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. UNAT held that UNDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva’s terms and conditions of...

As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before UNDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, UNAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of UNDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its judgment, although UNAT differed in its reasoning. UNAT held that the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General’s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, UNAT held that UNDT’s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment on merits only became final when UNDT issued the judgment on compensation. UNAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

UNAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the UN. UNAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment.