������ҹ������

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO’s Field Service Staff Rules. UNAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the “neutral first instance process”. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

UNAT found that UNDT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that despite acknowledging that under UNAT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, UNDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the UNRWA DT judgment. UNAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant’s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.

UNAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. UNAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment dismissing the staff member’s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier’s contention that the Secretary-General’s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere “a moral victory”, UNAT held that success before UNDT depends on whether the staff member’s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to UNAT, as the unsuccessful party before UNDT, the...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,” as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants’ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...