51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the UNDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, UNAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. UNAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as UNDT correctly concluded that applications to UNDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that neither Article 11 of the UNAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the UNDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable because UNDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. UNAT held that, while it confirmed the UNDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that UNDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...