�鶹��ý

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the UNDT should have rescinded the Administration’s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, UNAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT’s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are “normally” for a period of two years “at a time”. Because of the words “at a time”, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, UNAT held there...