�鶹��ý

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further UNAT found no merit in the Secretary-General’s argument that UNDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ademagic’s cross-appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. UNAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member’s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment” and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. UNAT also agreed with UNDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

UNAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. UNAT upheld UNDT’s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members’ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that UNAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members’ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments “by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before UNDT. UNAT further rejected the staff member’s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. UNAT held that UNDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT’s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

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 the Secretary-General’s submissions were valid in most aspects. UNAT held that the award of 21 months’ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz’s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months’ remuneration would be adequate compensation. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant’s placement on sick leave with half pay. UNAT held that UNDT erred by awarding...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by UNDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure UNDT’s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the UNAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member’s contract in a non-renewal case. UNAT, therefore, held that the Appellant’s...