51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...

UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on...

UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

UNAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. UNDT/2012/116. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision. UNAT noted that even if the UNDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the UNDT...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

UNAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before UNDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the UNDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. UNAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. UNAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...