51ÁÔÆæ

Considering the circumstances, the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind the contested decision (in comparison, see the Appeals Tribunal in Lucchini 2021-UNAT-1121 and Rolli 2023-UNAT-1346).

It is standard practice and courtesy in the Organization that, albeit fixed-term appointments, per definition, do not carry any expectancy of renewal under staff rule 4.13(c), a staff member whose fixed-term appointment is not to be renewed is to receive a pre-notification concerning the non-extension, at least 30 days before its expiry. The Respondent has not argued or submitted any documentation...

The Applicant¡¯s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the UNDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the UNAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the UNDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the UNAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

Under the definition of fraud, the Tribunal observed that the question of the Applicant¡¯s own benefit is not a required element to establish a finding of fraud. Rather, if found that by a misrepresentation, she intentionally deceived the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days and this actually or potentially caused prejudice to the 2017 and 2018 Staff Days, this is adequate.

The Tribunal found that, in the given circumstances, the Administration acted within the scope of its authority when finding that the Applicant had committed fraud. Accordingly, as per Asghar: (a) the Applicant misrepresented the...

The Tribunal found that, in the present case, there is no dispute that the decision was unilaterally made by the administration and that it involved the exercise of a power or the performance of a statutory instrument. The dispute is on whether the decision adversely affected the rights of the Applicant and produced direct legal consequences.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s argument that ¡°UNOPS not only decided to charge [him], but also to maintain him in an indefinite status of ¡°charged person,¡± leaving him indeterminately prosecuted; since as¡ªat the time of the Application¡ªhe had...