51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that UNAT order UNDT to accept her applications. UNAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against UNDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). UNAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to UNAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, UNAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. UNAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because UNDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. UNAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. UNAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. UNAT held that the Secretary-General was...

UNAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, UNDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the UNDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-209. UNAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. UNAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. UNDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. UNDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. UNDT/2013/079. On receivability, UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that UNDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the placement of the Appellant on SLWOP enabled him to preserve his pension benefits, granted him the opportunity of remaining a staff member for the purpose of applying as an internal candidate for other positions, and made his relocation possible. UNAT held that there was no abuse of authority or deliberate attempt to harm, as argued by the Appellant, but rather the Organisation adopted a protective approach. Noting that, due to the downsizing exercise related to the Appellant¡¯s post and his reassignment, he was not entitled to SLWFP and his...

On the Appellant¡¯s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, UNAT did not find that UNDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and UNDT¡¯s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. UNAT held that there was no error by UNDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT noted that it was technically improper for UNDT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. UNAT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant¡¯s claim could not succeed. UNAT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that UNDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on UNDT¡¯s part. UNAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with UNDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the payment of interest awarded by UNDT on the payment of Mr Ahmed¡¯s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, UNAT upheld the UNDT judgment and held that the matter was properly before UNDT and could not be construed as res judicata. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-UNAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-UNAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-UNAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members¡¯ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. UNAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...

UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure¡¯s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration¡¯s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that UNDT erred in ¡°double-counting¡± by using the same element of Mr Andersson¡¯s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. UNAT also rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered that UNDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke¡¯s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. UNAT held that when it determines that UNDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. UNAT clarified that this did not...

UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether UNDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, UNAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, UNDT was not competent to consider the issue...