51ÁÔÆæ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. UNAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant¡¯s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. UNAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before UNDT and held that UNDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. UNAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant¡¯s reliance on erroneous advice...

UNAT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, regarding whether UNDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. UNAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. UNAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to UNDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the UNDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

UNAT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant¡¯s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered ¡°exceptional circumstances,¡± justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. UNAT noted that an applicant¡¯s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. UNAT was not persuaded by the Appellant¡¯s arguments upon appeal and did not find any...

UNAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, UNDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the UNDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT noted that it was technically improper for UNDT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant¡¯s claim could not succeed. UNAT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. UNAT dismissed the...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether UNDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, UNAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, UNDT was not competent to consider the issue...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. UNAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...