����AV

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr’s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr’s complaints. UNAT held that, by virtue of the “dysfunctional” work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Regarding the allegations that UNDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, UNAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant’s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

Regarding the lateral moves, UNAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate’s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of “lateral move” in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. UNAT held that UNDT’s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate’s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, UNAT held that the evidence before UNDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. UNAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. UNAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that “consideration” of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. UNAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. UNAT noted that the written test had taken...

UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by UNDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the UNDT had erred in assessing the damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and UNDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in affirming the JAB’s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNAT held that UNDT’s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT noted that UNDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by UNHCR’s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from UNHCR’s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. UNAT upheld the appeal and reversed the UNDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076) and Wu (2010-UNAT-042), UNAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months’ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. UNAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. UNAT also noted...

UNAT considered Ms Simmons’ appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that UNDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, UNAT found that UNDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons’ omissions and/or actions. UNAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons’ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, UNAT held that UNDT did not...