UNAT considered Ms Roig’s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.
UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...
UNAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and UNAT, therefore, upheld the findings of UNDT on this point. On compensation, UNAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. UNAT held that the Administration’s offer of USD 1,000 was...
UNAT held that the matter under investigation was closed and the Appellant had not presented any cogent argument to show that there were exceptional circumstances that might otherwise have entitled him to the investigation report. UNAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to receive a detailed copy of the investigation report. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the argument that UNDT erred on questions of law and fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by UNDT had to be vacated. UNAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...
UNAT held that the UNDT’s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, UNDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. UNAT...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of UNAT. UNAT considered that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar’s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant’s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. UNAT held that the issue was whether UNDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. UNAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...
Article 11.3 of the UNDT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a UNDT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the UNDT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the UNDT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...
