ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT considered an appeal limited to the claim that UNDT ordered inadequate compensation for the losses he sustained as a result of various acts and omissions on the part of the Administration. UNAT found that UNDT took due regard for the arguments the Appellant brought in his appeal and that UNDT, having regarded the parameters of what it could compensate the Appellant for, made adequate provisions for the Appellant¡¯s economic and social losses in its overall award to him. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether UNDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that it did. UNAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by UNDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to UNDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, UNAT held that...

The UNECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The UNECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with UN international legal instruments on human rights. The UNECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant¡¯s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the UNECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

While the Respondent submits that the recognized heads of damage are: actual pecuniary loss; damages for procedural error and moral damages, the Tribunal does not consider this list to be exhaustive. The Tribunal cannot conclude that if proper procedures had been followed, the Applicant would have been selected for the subject post. Nonetheless, it considers that the Applicant¡¯s prospect for selection was very high due to the fact that he was the only candidate deemed suitable for the post by the Advisory Selection Panel. Thus, the contested decision impacts substantially on the Applicant¡¯s...

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action ¨C urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

The Tribunal agreed with Thiam and Schook which held that the administration must send a written notification of the administrative decision to the staff member in order to determine when the sixty-day time limit starts to run. This Tribunal found that the Applicant was not formally notified of the impugned decision and the only official notification to the Applicant, that he was not selected for the post came in the form of the management evaluation report of 15 December 2010. The Tribunal therefore held that since the Applicant had requested a management evaluation on 27 October 2010, yet...