UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
UNAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of UNAT’s competence. UNAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, UNAT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT...
UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. UNAT found no error in UNDT’s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT summary judgment.
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, UNAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...
UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...
UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...
UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...
