Â鶹´«Ã½

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. UNAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. UNAT...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, UNAT held that UNDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

UNAT held that UNDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT held that UNDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. UNAT held that UNDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

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...