51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

UNAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that UNRWA¡¯s decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. UNAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant¡¯s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

UNAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the UNRWA DT judgment. UNAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

UNAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before UNDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, UNAT held that there was no fault in the UNDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the UNDT committed any error...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, UNAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. UNAT found no reason to differ from UNDT¡¯s approach. UNAT supported UNDT¡¯s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. UNAT suggested that UNDT and the Registries...