51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT noted that it was technically improper for UNDT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant¡¯s claim could not succeed. UNAT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-UNAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-UNAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-UNAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members¡¯ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. UNAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...

UNAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. UNAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. UNAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the UNDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of UNDT that Mr Koutang¡¯s actions did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, UNAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether UNDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, UNAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, UNDT was not competent to consider the issue...

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...