51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, UNAT agreed with UNDT that it would have been...

UNAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. UNAT held, therefore, that the UNDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to UNDT to be heard afresh.

In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...

UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

UNAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). UNAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. UNAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. UNAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.