51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant¡¯s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before UNDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

The Appellant challenged UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae as he did not make a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, UNAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. UNAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UNDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant failed...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

On the termination decision, UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that an individual contracted under an ICA was not a staff member and therefore had no standing before UNDT. UNAT referred the matter of the lack of judicial recourse for individual contractors to the attention of the President of the General Assembly for consideration and possible action. On the decision to recover monies, UNAT noted that, while management evaluation was not required to appeal the imposition of a disciplinary measure, such an argument was not valid in this case because the recovery of monies was not a disciplinary...

UNAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

As a first preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. UNAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and UNAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. UNAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. UNAT held that its RoP did...