51�Թ�

The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant’s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.

As to the...

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year’s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s argument that the UNDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used UN Womens’ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the UNDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The UNAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant’s post was established and funded and—by a subsequent exclusion—also showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal’s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of UN Women’s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (“G-3”). The Respondent...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the UNDT’s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the UNDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara’s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the UNDT’s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the UNAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The UNAT also held that the sanction of...