ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. UNDT/2012/116. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision. UNAT noted that even if the UNDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the UNDT...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

UNAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before UNDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the UNDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. UNAT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. UNAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

UNAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; UNDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. UNAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-154. UNAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither UNDT nor UNAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims’ case. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...