51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, UNDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. UNAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, UNDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. UNAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

To the extent that the UNDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, UNAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, UNAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which UNDT granted the withdrawal request. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. UNAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. UNDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed 51ÁÔÆæ the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. UNAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. UNAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before UNDT and held that UNDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. UNAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision had adverse effects on his terms and conditions of employment, in particular his health insurance and benefits. UNAT held that the Appellant had brought no relevant arguments to challenge UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no administrative decision within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction being contested. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, regarding whether UNDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. UNAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. UNAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...