51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the UNDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. UNAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. UNAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before UNDT and the reasons for UNDT dismissing his appeal were valid. UNAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. UNAT rejected the appeal.

UNAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-UNAT-036)). UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (UNDT/2009/052), which was disproved by UNAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. UNAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. UNAT...

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the UNDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to UNDT having stepped into the shoes of the UN Medical Director. UNAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of UNDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. UNAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed 51ÁÔÆæ the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...