Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled that UNAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. UNAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the non-selection of the Appellant was not vitiated by any improper motive. UNAT noted that, even if the alleged flaws were to be considered irregularities, they would not be important enough to render the proceedings null or to reflect a violation of rights and actual harm or discrimination suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that no compensation should be awarded to the Appellant, as no illegality or breach of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai’s submissions to management, prior to his application to UNDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai’s firearm licence, UNDT exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. UNAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey’s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. UNAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. UNAT held that UNDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, UNAT held that UNDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as “D-1...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that there was no fault with the UNDT’s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that UNDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. UNAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings UNAT would not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda’s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda’s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. UNAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. UNAT disagreed with UNDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, UNAT found that UNDT’s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting UNAT intervention...

The first management evaluation decision dealt with the issue of the promise made to the Applicant and granted him compensation of three months salary in lieu of further performance of his contract of employment. That decision itself as mentioned earlier does not prevent the Applicant from filing an appeal in respect of the same subject matter that is the non renewal of his contract. Whereas Management has considered the express promise to the Applicant and decided that monetary compensation was sufficient remedy, the Tribunal recalls that it found the “circumstances surrounding the non...