51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-418. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. UNAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. UNAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. UNAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that despite acknowledging that under UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, UNDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. UNAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and UNAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of UNAT can be revised, UNAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to UNAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, UNAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of UNDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of UNDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of UNDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal¡¯s mandate.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in view of the informal resolution of the dispute.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the transfer decision was arbitrary or based on improper motives. Administrative review/management evaluation: Requests for administrative review or management evaluation are mandatory first steps in the appeal process. In the case at hand, the only decision that was the subject of a request for management evaluation, and that is therefore properly before the Tribunal, is the decision to transfer the Applicant laterally from Cairo to Abu Dhabi. The Applicant¡¯s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish his post and of...