The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the UNDT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.
UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since UNAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. UNAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...
UNAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of UNAT. UNAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
UNAT held that UNDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a de novo review.
UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...
UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. UNAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. UNAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, UNDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. UNAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, UNDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. UNAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...
UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat’s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed 51猎奇 the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...
