Â鶹´«Ã½

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/113 (UNAT Case No. 2016-972) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-973). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. UNAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant’s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. UNDT/2016/111 (UNAT Case No. 2016-964) and UNDT/2016/114 (UNAT Case No. 2016-969). UNAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. UNAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both UNAT cases.

On the issue of UNDT’s denial of the Appellant’s request for confidentiality, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. UNAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the UNAT Statute’s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. UNAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by UNDT...

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 held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant’s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, UNAT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the...

UNAT held that UNDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. UNAT held that the whole reasoning of UNDT was misconstrued and UNDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of UNFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another UNFPA vendor. Further, UNAT held that there was...

UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that an application before UNDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. UNAT held that the...

UNDT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant’s...