51ÁÔÆæ

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...

UNAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. UNAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2010/038. UNAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. UNAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by UNDT. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2010/038, UNAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the UNDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which UNDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. UNAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by UNDT. UNAT noted that neither UNDT nor UNAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.