51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. UNAT found that UNDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run ¡°from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ¡± As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, UNAT found that UNDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT set aside UNDT¡¯s judgment and remanded the case back to UNDT to have the...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. UNAT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. UNAT accordingly held that UNAT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). UNAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. UNAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. UNAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that UNDT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli¡¯s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. UNAT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member¡¯s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. UNAT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. UNAT held...

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. UNAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. UNAT...

UNAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the UNDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. UNDT/2009/052) in her request for UNDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the UNDT Statute could not be disregarded. UNAT approved judgment No. UNDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of UNDT in Rosca. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the UNDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

UNAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. UNAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that UNDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. UNAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by UNDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging UNDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. UNAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the UNDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.