51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that UNDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, UNAT found that UNDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. UNAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, UNAT held that UNDT did not...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...

UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on...

UNAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. UNDT/2012/116. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision. UNAT noted that even if the UNDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the UNDT...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. UNDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. UNDT/2013/101. UNAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. UNAT found that UNDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. UNAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before UNRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. UNAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, UNAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. UNAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of law...