51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment was firmly supported by the evidence relative to the necessities of service in the context of a downsizing exercise, and no bias or improper purpose vitiated the impugned decision. UNAT held that as the Appellant did not effectively rebut the conclusions of the impugned judgment, he did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that it was defective such as to...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether UNDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that it did. UNAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by UNDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to UNDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, UNAT held that...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

UNAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNDT erred in awarding costs against him. UNAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. UNAT found that UNDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of UNDT or had, in any other way, abused UNDT¡¯s proceedings. UNAT...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that UNDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute is alternative...

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...