51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, UNAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. UNAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the UNAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. UNAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that while only final judgments of the UNDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. UNAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute UNDT exceeding its jurisdiction. UNAT further noted that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) UNAT Rules). UNAT agreed with UNDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that UNAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the UNDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s finding that...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. UNAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the UNDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of UNDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. UNAT held that the UNDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal¡¯s processes and within the UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction. UNAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. UNAT held that UNDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. UNAT also noted that it does...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...