������ҹ������

UNAT held that UNDT’s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. UNAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration’s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law, and followed binding UNAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant’s testimony. UNAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before UNDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

UNDT erred in deciding that Mr. Adriantseheno had been charged solely with sexual harassment, that his behavior towards Vo1 and Vo2 did not constitute sexual harassment, and that his due process rights were violated.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede’s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. UNAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede’s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). UNDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede’s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant’s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1 (a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot compel the Organization to investigate the Applicant’s complaints against ECA’s Senior Management as pleaded by the Applicant. An investigation is part of a disciplinary procedure as described at paragraph 2 of ST/AI/371 – Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures. The Applicant has recourse under the Staff Regulations and Rules to pursue his grievances in relation to his allegations of abuse of authority by ECA Management.

The decision by the Chief of the Human Resources Services Section (HRSS) to discontinue the selection process without a proper determination that the recruitment procedures had not been followed precisely was an abuse of the Administration’s discretionary authority. While the Applicant had only been “recommended” for the post by the ASP and had not been “selected”, the serious procedural irregularity that resulted from the Chief of HRSS’ actions prevented his candidacy from proceeding to the central review body and therefore amounted to a violation of his rights. The decision was an abuse of...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.