51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules. UNAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between UNJSPF and CTBTO. UNAT...

UNAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by UNDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s UNDT application was not receivable. UNAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the UNDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. UNAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

The Secretary-General appealed UNDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. UNAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. UNAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

UNRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. UNAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

UNAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant UNDT Registry. UNAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. UNAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. UNAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT...

UNAT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. UNAT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC¡¯s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that UNDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. UNAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to UNDT for his witness to be called. UNAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the UNDT judgment and that it was not clear that UNDT had considered that evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by UNDT for not calling the witness. UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...