51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

UNAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. UNAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

UNAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJSPB decision.

UNAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. UNAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. UNAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. UNAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

UNAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the UNJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. UNAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. UNAT held that the UNJSPF correctly applied the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the UNDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). UNAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. UNAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. UNAT noted that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

UNAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, UNDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.