51ÁÔÆæ

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, UNAT held that UNDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-297. UNAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

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...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (UNRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/027. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the UNRWA DT judgment and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to UNAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that it was for UNRWA DT to consider that it...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation 51ÁÔÆæ Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-UNAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that UNAT strike certain paragraphs from it. UNAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that his application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, UNAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. UNAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the UNAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. UNAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of UNAT, UNAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. UNAT held that UNDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had 51ÁÔÆæ the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...