51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the UNDT and had no standing. On the merits, UNAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the UNDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. UNAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. UNAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by UNRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

UNAT noted that UNRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the UNRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). UNAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by UNAT judgments: it identified the...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. UNAT found that in any case the UNDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, UNAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, UNAT also found no error in the UNRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. UNAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that...