�山����

UNAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. UNAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, UNAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the UNDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which UNDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General’s submissions on the basis of “minimal showing” that the Applicant had been fairly considered. UNAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2010/038. UNAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. UNAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by UNDT. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2010/038, UNAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by UNDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging UNDT’s decision to award compensation. UNAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the UNDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the UNDT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.

UNAT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since UNAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. UNAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

UNAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of UNAT. UNAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

UNAT held that UNDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a de novo review.