Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, UNAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. UNAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of UNDT and found no basis for disagreeing with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT held that there was no reason to interfere with UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving UNDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member’s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. UNAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. UNAT held that the Administration’s failure to respond to staff members’ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that UNDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. UNAT held that it disagreed with UNDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before UNDT. UNAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

On the Appellants’ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent’s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants’ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants’ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of UNAT, UNAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. UNAT held that UNDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

UNAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the UNJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of UNJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF in the administration of its staff. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the UNJSPF’s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT...

UNAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of UNAT’s competence. UNAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...