51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. UNAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. UNAT held that any alleged error by UNDT in considering the merits was moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. UNAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, UNAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the UNAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis. UNAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

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 referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. UNAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. UNAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General on the matter of the interest. UNAT held that UNDT has the power to award interest but erred in ordering the payment of interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. UNAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the award of interest from the UNDT judgment, and awarded interest at the US Prime Rate applicable at the date that the entitlements became due. UNAT held that if the judgment was not executed within 60 days, five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate from the date of expiry of the 60-day period to the date of payment of the...

UNAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have UNAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. UNAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having UNAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. UNAT held that the use of the word ¡°annul¡± would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant¡¯s fixed-term...

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the UNDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. UNAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. UNAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before UNDT and the reasons for UNDT dismissing his appeal were valid. UNAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. UNAT rejected the appeal.

UNAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither UNDT nor UNAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, UNAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. UNAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before UNAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. UNAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, UNAT held that UNDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. UNDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, UNAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT observed that the Appellant did not challenge the reasoning of UNDT, but appealed on the ground that the administrative policy in place should be changed because she was promoted but her gross income was reduced. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s pay calculations also took into account other deductions and increases such that her net income increased. UNAT held that the real issue before it was whether UNDT made a reversible error in fact or law such that it must allow the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not disagree that, on its face, the calculations of her salary were made...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected an application by the Staff Union of the ICTY for leave to file a friend-of-the court brief under Article 17 of its Rules of Procedure on the scope of review of the Secretary-General¡¯s decision in disciplinary proceedings and the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, on the basis that the facts and legal issues were not so complex that the brief would assist it. UNAT held that UNDT, in exercising judicial review, may interfere with the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary proceedings against a staff member on the ground...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. UNAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. UNAT...

UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.