Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. UNAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the UNDT decision under appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that UNDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. UNAT held that the evidence contemplated by the Appellant would not be admissible since it was known to the Appellant and should have been presented at the level of UNDT. Considering that, at the time of the placement of the Note in the Appellant’s file, he was not even a Ãå±±½ûµØstaff member and the subsequent action by the Secretary-General to allow the Appellant the opportunity to place his comments in his file, UNAT held that there were no circumstances which would warrant calling on any official to account for his or her actions. Regarding the Appellant’s request for costs against the Respondent, UNAT held that there was no evidence before it which would permit finding that the Respondent had been guilty of manifestly abusing the appeals process. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence of emotional distress. UNAT further held that the Appellant had not made out a case for referral for accountability, nor for an order for costs. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.