51ÁÔÆæ

Scope of application: It is an essential and inherent part of the duties of a Judge to clarify, interpret and comprehend what the claim is to identify what is in fact being contested. Time limits (receivability ratione materiae): Time limits do not begin to run anew simply because and when an Applicant is provided with a reasonable belief that there are grounds to request management evaluation of a decision that was notified at an earlier stage. Administrative decision (receivability ratione materiae): In case of post abolition, the decision to (re)advertise the post is not an administrative...

The Tribunal found the application not receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(d)(i) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute because it was not filed within 90 days of the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation.

The Tribunal rescinded the contested decisions and awarded USD50,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

N/A

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since UNDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. UNAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before UNDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. UNAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or UNAT to conduct a fresh investigation. UNAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the UNAT RoP and no...

UNAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

UNAT found that the execution of the UNDT judgment No. UNDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to UNAT. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-516 wherein UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before UNAT. UNAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. UNAT considered that the only...

UNAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before UNDT. UNAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. UNAT held that UNDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

UNAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. UNAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before UNDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. UNAT held that UNDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify UNAT¡¯s...

UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...