51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

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...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, UNAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, UNAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. UNAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the UNAT judgment, UNAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before UNDT and UNAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. UNAT held that there was no...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of UNRWA DT, that UNRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. UNAT held that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. UNAT held that the...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law. UNAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. UNAT noted that the minutes upon which UNDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. UNAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright¡¯s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. UNAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and UNDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright¡¯s application receivable. UNAT held that in light of the UNDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the UNDT¡¯s...