The Tribunal noted that under staff rule 11.2(a), requesting a management evaluation was indeed required, but the Applicant had not previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. UNAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. UNAT...
UNAT considered an appeal against judgment No. UNDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. UNAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by UNDT no longer existed. UNAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.
UNAT held that the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2011/080, UNAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request UNAT to order his reinstatement. UNAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that UNDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...
UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...
UNAT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant’s submission, UNAT held that UNDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal by a full bench of UNAT. The majority of the judges upheld UNDT’s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for UNDT’s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the UNDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier’s contention that the Secretary-General’s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere “a moral victory”, UNAT held that success before UNDT depends on whether the staff member’s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to UNAT, as the unsuccessful party before UNDT, the...
