�鶹��ý

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT’s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2013/035 and UNRWA/DT/2014/004. UNAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. UNAT held that UNRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of UNRWA DT. UNAT held...

On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General’s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, UNAT held that the Appellant’s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant’s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

UNAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the UNJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of UNJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF in the administration of its staff. UNAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the UNJSPF’s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law when it found UNICEF’s decision not to renew Mr Said’s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT did not accord any deference to UNICEF’s conclusion that Mr Said’s performance was poor and, instead, UNDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. UNAT held that UNDT made...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. UNAT found no error in UNDT’s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT summary judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, UNAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

The UNAT refused the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”, (Article 18(1) UNAT Rules). UNAT agreed with UNDT that there were “inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself” and that UNAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the UNDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. UNAT found that the Appellant’s...