51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant¡¯s candidature full and fair consideration. UNAT held that UNDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. UNAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of UNDT. UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before UNDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. UNAT held that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. UNAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

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 the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure gives UNDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by UNDT was...