51ÁÔÆæ

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 51ÁÔÆæ the 90-calendar day deadline.

He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed 51ÁÔÆæ staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

The UNAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The UNRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the UNRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

UNAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, UNAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The UNAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the UNDT's decision on receivability, the UNAT held that the UNDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the UNAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The UNAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...