51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. UNAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), UNDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

UNAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. UNAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the UNDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, UNAT held...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/017. UNAT noted that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. UNAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute which provided...

UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s challenge which related to the comments of...