�山����

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the UNDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which UNDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General’s submissions on the basis of “minimal showing” that the Applicant had been fairly considered. UNAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. UNAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that UNDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and remanded it to UNDT for further proceedings.

The staff member appealed on the ground that UNDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. UNAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, UNAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by UNDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. UNAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the UNDT’s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. UNAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to �山����staff. UNAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. UNAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that UNDT awarded damages from the correct date. UNAT held that the Administration’s allegation that UNDT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076) and Wu (2010-UNAT-042), UNAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months’ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. UNAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. UNAT also noted...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. UNAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. UNAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...

UNAT held that there was no valid claim of unfair treatment and discrimination by the Appellant against the former Chief of ATS and UNDT therefore correctly limited its consideration to the interview process. UNAT held that the Appellant was merely repeating arguments that were adequately considered by UNDT and that there were no reasons to reverse UNDT’s judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; UNAT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. UNAT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by UNDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. UNAT noted that the impugned judgment followed UNAT’s jurisprudence, but UNDT’s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that due...