������ҹ������

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. UNAT held that the UNDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal’s processes and within the UNDT’s jurisdiction. UNAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. UNAT held that UNDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. UNAT also noted that it does...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...

UNAT agreed with the UNDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member’s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. UNAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of UNDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the UNDT is not receivable. UNAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

UNDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. UNDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant’s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General’s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. UNDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant’s reassignment, if implemented, would...

UNDT found that the applicant’s case was limited to the amount of adequate compensation for the failure to adequately and timeously consider his complaint and that his other claims, including with respect to the termination of his appointment, were not properly before it. UNDT found that the Administration was required—but failed—to undertake an adequate and timeous initial inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. UNDT found that the applicant substantiated his claims of emotional distress and injury and must be compensated for it. However, UNDT found that the applicant failed to show that...

The Respondent submits that the contested decision was expressed in a letter dated 3 August 2001 and the claim is therefore time-barred as the Applicant’s request for administrative review, dated 2 May 2005, was filed out of time. The Applicant avers that her application is receivable as the final decision subject to appeal was expressed in the letter of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 30 March 2005. UNDT found that the contested decision was made on 3 August 2001 and that the Applicant was notified of it, at the latest, on or before 15 April 2002. UNDT found that the Applicant...

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant’s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant’s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4...

Consultations: “Consultation with the appropriate staff representative bodies” does not mean that for an administrative instruction to enter into force, it must necessarily meet the agreement of the staff representatives.Acquired right: An acquired right is breached only when an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental or essential terms of employment.Irreparable damage: Mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable damage. Harm to professional reputation and career prospects, or harm to health, or sudden loss of...

It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.