�山����

UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that “consideration” of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. UNAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. UNAT noted that the written test had taken...

UNAT held that UNDT’s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. UNAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-UNAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than UNAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. UNAT also found that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. UNAT further dismissed the Appellant’s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. UNAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, UNAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. UNAT allowed Ms Akyeampong’s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de...

On the Appellant’s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, UNAT did not find that UNDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and UNDT’s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. UNAT held that there was no error by UNDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...

UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure’s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration’s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. UNAT held that the Appellant’s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

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 the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Skourikhine’s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration’s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

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 staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, UNAT held that UNDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate’s chance of selection for placement on the roster. UNAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin UNDT’s assessment that the staff member’s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s cross...