ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The UNAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous UNAT judgment.

The UNAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the UNAT. The UNAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The UNAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The UNAT, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The UNAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The UNAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The UNAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that UNDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. UNAT held that UNDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. UNAT held that UNDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

UNAT held that pursuant to Article 30 UNAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. UNAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. UNAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had very thoroughly considered the...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. UNAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...