UNAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, UNDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). UNAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. UNAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. UNAT noted that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...
UNAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, UNAT held that UNDT did...
UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
UNAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJSPB decision.
UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. UNAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the UNDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael’s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. UNAT held that Michael’s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. UNAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline’s marriage to Michael invalid. UNAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months’ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. UNAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...
As a preliminary issue, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. UNAT held that UNDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant’s...
UNAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui’s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT’s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court’s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...
