�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 Mr Krioutchkov’s appeal as well as the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. UNAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov’s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov’s application was receivable by UNDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

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 all arguments made on appeal. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in UNDT’s findings. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s findings that the Approving Authority’s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. UNAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

UNAT found that the execution of the UNDT judgment No. UNDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal to UNAT. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-516 wherein UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the staff member’s motion seeking execution was properly filed before UNAT. UNAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. UNAT considered that the only...

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 the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before UNDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. UNAT held that UNDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify UNAT’s...

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.