�山����

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months’ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. UNAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-UNAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten’s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in law...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT’s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the UNDT’s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in...

On the issue of the UNDT’s decision not to take up the Appellant’s motion for disclosure of documents, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore UNAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. UNAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

UNAT held that it was disingenuous for UNRWA to suggest that the Appellant’s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant’s due process entitlements. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant’s application for assignment. UNAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

UNAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. UNAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant’s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. UNAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant’s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. UNAT...

UNAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. UNAT held that there was no error in this regard. UNAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, UNRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant’s claims for loss of opportunity. UNAT held that, in view of...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson’s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s decision. UNAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. UNAT found that there was no basis for UNDT to conclude that “no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson’s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ” UNAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

UNAT considered all arguments made on appeal. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in UNDT’s findings. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s findings that the Approving Authority’s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. UNAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months’ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara’s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...