ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT considered two appeals by the staff member of UNDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. UNAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before UNDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, UNAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. UNAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. UNAT held that there was no statutory...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked UNDT to overturn a policy. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that there was no reason to interfere with UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving UNDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT’s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. UNAT held that UNDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. UNAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman’s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. UNAT held that there was no legal authority for UNDT to commence the...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. UNAT held that the UNRWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that UNRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of UNDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General’s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, UNAT held that UNAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

UNAT held that it could find no fault with the UNDT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with UNAT’s jurisprudence. UNAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the UNDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before UNDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of UNICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about UNICEF’s failure to protect him. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...