51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that it was open to UNDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. UNAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. UNAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. UNAT held that any alleged error by UNDT in considering the merits was moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment on merits only became final when UNDT issued the judgment on compensation. UNAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

UNAT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, UNAT noted that UNDT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. UNAT rescinded the UNDT¡¯s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.

UNAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. UNAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

UNAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the UNAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. UNAT held, therefore, that UNDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.