51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...

UNAT held that that UNDT had correctly established that the silence of the UNEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. UNAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. UNAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. UNAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. UNAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Regarding the allegations that UNDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, UNAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

UNAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 11.1 of the UNDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited UNDT from extending the deadline for...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on the question of competence in finding that, pursuant to Articles 2. 1 and 3. 1 of the UNDT Statute, it was limited to cases brought by staff members, former staff members or persons making claims in the name of incapacitated or deceased staff members of the UN. UNAT held that the access to UNDT and UNAT was not recognised in the new internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the UNDT Orders. UNAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. UNAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...