51ÁÔÆæ

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 the appeal and allowed it in part. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that the AJAB found a series of violations of her rights as a staff member, but had not awarded commensurate compensation, had merit. UNAT held that the IACO breaches identified by the AJAB were fundamental in nature, (i. e. The treating of a temporary assignment as permanent, discrimination of the staff member, failure to make good faith efforts to find alternative positions, and refusing to provide access to personnel and confidential files) and the breach itself gave rise to an award of moral damages by...

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, UNAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. UNAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, UNAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO¡¯s Field Service Staff Rules. UNAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the ¡°neutral first instance process¡±. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ a mandatory step of the first instance...

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. UNAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

UNAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when UNAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the motion. UNAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...