51ÁÔÆæ

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 51ÁÔÆæ 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 UNAT rescinded...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that UNAT order UNDT to accept her applications. UNAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against UNDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). UNAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to UNAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, UNAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-142. UNAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. UNAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. UNAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-209. UNAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. UNAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

UNAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment. UNAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of UNDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT in vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. UNAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, UNAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. UNAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former UN Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...