Â鶹´«Ã½

UNAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. UNAT held, in agreement with the UNDT’s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager’s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim was fully and fairly considered by UNDT. UNAT found no fault in UNDT’s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant’s right...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s application. UNAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of UNRWA DT, that UNRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. UNAT held that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant’s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. UNAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. UNAT held that UNDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

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 refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. UNAT held that the reasoning of UNDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant’s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. UNAT held that it was unable to identify any...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that there was no fault with the UNDT’s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that UNDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. UNAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings UNAT would not...

UNAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. UNAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. UNAT held that accounting for factors such as UNAMID’s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate’s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General’s discretion to do so. UNAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...