Â鶹´«Ã½

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT’s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

The Secretary-General appealed UNDT’s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. UNAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. UNAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of UNDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, UNAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before UNRWA DT. UNAT found that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant’s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT’s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred in fact or law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered two appeals by the staff member of UNDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. UNAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before UNDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, UNAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. UNAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. UNAT held that there was no statutory...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. UNAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the UNRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of UNRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before UNRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. UNAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and UNRWA and that UNAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. UNAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of UNRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and UNRWA’s regulatory...

UNAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. UNAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a UNDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, UNAT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT...