�山����

UNAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither UNDT nor UNAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, UNAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General’s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, UNAT held that UNDT’s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment on merits only became final when UNDT issued the judgment on compensation. UNAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

UNAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months’ net base salary. UNAT held that UNDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. UNAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (UNDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. UNAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, UNDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. UNAT held that UNDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. UNAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. UNAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, UNAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

UNAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. UNAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, UNAT held that UNDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). UNAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by UNDT. UNAT noted that neither UNDT nor UNAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to...

UNAT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. UNAT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one’s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. UNAT also affirmed the findings of fact by UNDT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and upheld UNDT’s judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by UNDT. UNAT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment.