51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals against UNDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. UNAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute authorizes UNDT to order suspension of a contested decision only ¡°during the pendency of the management evaluation¡±. UNAT found that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since UNAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. UNAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

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 had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT¡¯s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of UNAT. UNAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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 held that UNDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a de novo review.

UNAT considered Mr Paskolti¡¯s application for revision of former UN Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.