�鶹��ý

The various acts submitted by the Respondent—General Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA’s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant’s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal’s...

In asserting whether the Administration properly determined the Applicant’s step-in-grade, the core issue before the Tribunal is whether and, if so, to what extent, the Applicant’s Ph.D. experience in Economics would constitute relevant work experience for a language professional under the Grading Guidelines for language staff.

The documentary evidence on record shows that the Applicant did his Ph.D. in Economics from 1 October 2014 to 9 June 2019 on a full-time basis. Therefore, his Ph.D. experience in Economics would amount to around two years and four months of relevant experience...

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of “does not meet performance expectations” and the 2019-2020 “partially meets performance expectations”, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member. UNAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. UNAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant UNAT’s intervention. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. UNAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding UNDT’s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-096). UNAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded UNDT from awarding any compensation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

UNAT observed that the Appellant did not challenge the reasoning of UNDT, but appealed on the ground that the administrative policy in place should be changed because she was promoted but her gross income was reduced. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s pay calculations also took into account other deductions and increases such that her net income increased. UNAT held that the real issue before it was whether UNDT made a reversible error in fact or law such that it must allow the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not disagree that, on its face, the calculations of her salary were made...

UNAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, UNDT undertook a final review of the Appellant’s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. UNAT held there was no basis to disagree with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.