�鶹��ý

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that—in the hypothesis that the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018—it would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant’s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by UNDT. UNAT noted that neither UNDT nor UNAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to...

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant’s termination, UNAT held that the UNRWA JAB’s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. UNAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. UNAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that UNDT erred when it decided to give UNHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. UNAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the UNDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). UNAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General’s argument that UNDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, UNAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, UNAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in UNRWA DT to decide on remedy. UNAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General’s argument that...

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...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara’s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

UNAT made several findings on the appeal. First, UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. UNAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. UNAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, UNAT disagreed with...

UNAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the UNDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, UNAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the UNDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). UNAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...