¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. UNAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. UNAT held that the Executive Director’s actions disregarded Mr Verschur’s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT’s approach in considering the Appellant’s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that it was not the function of UNDT or UNAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. UNAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in UNDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant’s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. UNAT held that UNDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNDT made any errors of...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. UNAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. UNAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

UNAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the UN, through UNAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by UNAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. UNAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. UNAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the UN, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a de novo review.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. UNAT held that the Administration applied UNICEF’s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi’s favour. UNAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered – or even favoured for reasons of gender – in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by UNICEF during the selection process. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. UNAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. UNAT held that UNDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. UNAT held that UNDT committed...

The staff member appealed on the ground that UNDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. UNAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, UNAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by UNDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. UNAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the UNDT’s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

UNAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. UNAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.