51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, UNAT held there was no basis for vacating the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the UNDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. UNAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that UNDT erred in its...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. UNAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the UNDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the UNDT Judgment, UNAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

UNAT was not able to detect any errors in the UNDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of UNAT.

UNDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the UNDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, UNDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, UNDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

UNDT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the UNDT Statute. UNDT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. UNDT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 UNDT Statute, art. 7.5 UNDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether UNDT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead¡¤of...

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 UNDT Statute, art. 7.5 UNDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration...

Staff rule 111.2 (a) requires that a staff member who wishes to challenge an administrative decision to request the Secretary-General, within two months of notification of the said decision, for the decision to be reconsidered. This period starts from the notification of the first refusal decision. The sending by the administration of decisions confirming a first refusal does not reopen the deadlines. However, it is up to the judge to ascertain before rejecting a time-barred request that the staff member has not been misled by the administration on the terms of his appeal.