51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

In the instant case, the Respondent showed that three available P-5 posts were identified as suitable to the Applicant¡¯s qualifications and experience and that he was invited to apply for them for consideration. If the Applicant had put a foot in the door by applying to any of them, then the next stage would have been for the Tribunal to examine whether UNFPA selected a non-permanent staff member above the qualified Applicant thus denying the Applicant of the protections afforded him by staff rules 9.6(e) and 13(d). Good faith efforts on both sides means that both parties cooperate to identify...

UNAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the UNSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. UNAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the UNSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. UNAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. UNAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the paragraphs of the UNDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, UNAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. UNAT found that UNRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), UNAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, UNRWA DT...

UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the UNJSPF decision before appealing to UNAT. UNAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.