51ÁÔÆæ

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...

On appeal, UNAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. UNAT further held that UNRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

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...

The issue for determination by UNAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the UNDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before UNDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before UNAT. UNAT held that in the absence of any published UNDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of UNDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. UNAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. UNAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of UNRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and UNRWA¡¯s regulatory...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT accepted the Secretary-General¡¯s position that UNMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the UNMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. UNAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. UNAT held that the change in the composition of the...