51ÁÔÆæ

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

UNAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that an application before UNDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that UNDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, UNAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT¡¯s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by ¡°officials¡±, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

UNAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. UNAT upheld the UNDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. UNAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, UNDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT held that UNDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before UNDT. UNAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before UNAT and therefore UNAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The UNDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, UNAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, UNAT found no reason to differ from the UNDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...