51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

UNAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-UNAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that UNDT had made to its own judgment. UNAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the UNDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. UNAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by UNAT on her application for a suspension of action. UNAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before UNDT. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. UNAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UNDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant failed...

On the termination decision, UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before UNDT. UNAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, UNAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.