�鶹��ý

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General’s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler’s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that UNDT’s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure gives UNDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information “for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by UNDT was...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. UNAT held that he did not demonstrate that UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. UNAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. UNAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the UNDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

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...

UNAT held that UNDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. UNAT held that, regarding the question of whether UNDT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that UNDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. UNAT held, however, that UNDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. UNAT held that the UNDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. UNAT admitted on appeal the...

UNAT held the staff member’s appeal of the UNDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the UNDT was erroneous. Additionally, UNAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the UNDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties’ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant’s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal’s order—the use of the word “grounds” in a subheading instead of “issues” is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.