51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, UNDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the UNDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the UNDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to UNDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, UNAT noted that these matters had been...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. UNAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade UNAT that UNDT made any error of law or fact in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled that UNAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. UNAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

On the alleged procedural error of the UNDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, UNAT held that it was well within the competence of UNDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; UNAT dismissed this ground of appeal. UNAT held, affirming the finding of UNDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNDT failed to consider that UNHCR...