51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. UNAT held that there was...

UNAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-¨¤-vis his former spouse. UNAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the UNJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. UNAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...

UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since UNDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

UNAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

UNAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that UNDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. UNAT held that UNDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. UNAT held that UNDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

UNAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). UNAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. UNAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade UNAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

UNAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2015/100, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that a UNRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the UN Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, UNAT reiterated that UNAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction...