������ҹ������

The contested decision impacted the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant’s legal situation vis-à-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant’s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough...

The Tribunal found that with clear and convincing evidence, the Respondent only managed to establish that the Applicant intended to assert some, albeit ineffective, pressure on BM in the hiring process of daily workers. Under Sanwidi, the Tribunal found that the termination of the Applicant’s appointment was manifestly incorrect and led to a disproportionate outcome. The contested decision was therefore unlawful.

Considering its findings on the unlawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind this decision (in comparison, see...

UNAT granted the appeal in part. UNAT held that UNDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. UNAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that UNDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the UNDT’s findings on compensation for moral...

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that—in the hypothesis that the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018—it would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant’s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

UNAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, UNDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. UNAT held that UNDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. UNAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

UNAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. UNAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by UNDT. UNAT noted that neither UNDT nor UNAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to...

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant’s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB’s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

In reviewing the Appellant’s appeal, UNAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. UNAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. UNAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that UNDT erred when it decided to give UNHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. UNAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the UNDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). UNAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...