51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by UNDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further UNAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that UNDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. UNAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. UNAT found that there was no basis for UNDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± UNAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. UNAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. UNAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as UNDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...