UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.
UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. UNAT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. UNAT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah’s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years’ further service. UNAT...
UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that...
UNAT held that neither Article 11 of the UNAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the UNDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable because UNDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. UNAT held that, while it confirmed the UNDT’s conclusion, it found that UNDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT’s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT’s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of UNDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. UNAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the UNDT’s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. UNAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. UNAT opined that the...
UNAT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
UNAT considered Mr Gharemani’s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-171. UNAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. UNAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the request was time-barred...
UNAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. UNAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, UNAT upheld the UNDT’s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the UNIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay’s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. UNAT held that it was correct to conclude, as UNDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...
