51ÁÔÆæ

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 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 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.

UNAT noted that when the new system was created, UNDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. 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 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 the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, UNDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. UNAT held that UNDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. UNAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...