51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. UNAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, UNAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT¡¯s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of UNDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. UNAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the UNDT¡¯s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. UNAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. UNAT opined that the...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-154. UNAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither UNDT nor UNAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, UNAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by UNRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, UNAT found that UNRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.