51ÁÔÆæ

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

UNAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before UNRWA DT to be non-receivable. UNAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before UNRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. UNAT held that the UNRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that UNRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

UNAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and UNRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). UNAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. UNAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. UNAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/017. UNAT noted that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. UNAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute which provided...