������ҹ������

UNAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT’s approach. UNAT supported UNDT’s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. UNAT suggested that UNDT and the Registries...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by UNDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure UNDT’s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the UNAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member’s contract in a non-renewal case. UNAT, therefore, held that the Appellant’s...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

UNAT held that UNDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, UNAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant’s claim for damages to “restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering” and for “irregularities and ignorance. ” The appeal could not succeed on those claims. UNAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before UNDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before UNDT to justify its findings of “moral injury”. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of “moral injury” without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill “some” staff members. UNAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. UNAT held that UNDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

UNAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, UNAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the UNDT. UNAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...