�鶹��ý

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. UNAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered UNRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. UNAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

UNAT held that the reason upon which UNDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. UNAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by UNDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

As a first preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. UNAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant’s own motions and UNAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. UNAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent’s observations on a motion. UNAT held that its RoP did...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the UNDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the UNAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the UNDT has: (a) exceeded its...

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant’s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to “direct negotiations” being underway; “with the Respondent in this matter”, but failed to...

The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the UNDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former UN Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before UNDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member’s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

OSLA is an integral part of the Secretariat of the United Nations and that its decisions are taken under the umbrella of the Secretary-General. OSLA’s decisions may be challenged to the extent that they are strictly administrative decisions and are not related to the giving of advice to litigants or the conduct of cases before the UNDT. It must be noted however that the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not limited to the author of the decision but most importantly to its nature. In order to establish that the administrative decision impacts on the contract of employment or terms of...

Abolished posts: The onus is on the Respondent to show that the Organization acted correctly towards the Applicant as a permanent appointee on an abolished post and to demonstrate what good faith steps it took, in accordance with its legal and policy obligations, to assist her with finding alternative employment.Manifest abuse of process: A withdrawal of an admission of liability upon which the parties have relied may result in a finding of manifest abuse of process warranting award of costs.Outcome: Relied ordered: (i) 9 months’ net base salary (breach of rights and loss of chance of...