UNAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. UNAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. UNAT held that any alleged error by UNDT in considering the merits was moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the UNDT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that it was open to UNDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. UNAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...
UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.
UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT’s order for production of the OIOS...
UNAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. UNAT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. UNAT held that the requirement for UN Office at Nairobi (UNON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation’s staff medical insurance plan. UNAT held that this requirement was of general...
The Secretary-General claimed that UNDT had no power to award interest. UNAT found that both UNDT and UNAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...
UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
