Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal against UNDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to UNDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, UNAT held that UNDT...

The Appellant contested the UNDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. UNAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal’s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. UNAT affirmed the UNDT finding that the Administration’s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. UNAT held that the UNDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal’s processes and within the UNDT’s jurisdiction. UNAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. UNAT held that UNDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. UNAT also noted that it does...

A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of UNDT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of UNDT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of UNDT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal’s mandate.

UNDT rejected the UNHCR’s allegation that the rescission request to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) was inadmissible as time-barred. In light of ST/AI/2005/12, UNDT found that the Director of UNHCR Medical Service had the authority to convoke the Applicant at any moment to undergo a medical examination to verify whether his state of health permitted him to discharge the functions he was assigned to. UNDT noted that the Applicant fell ill and was placed on sick leave for an indefinite period by his personal doctor following an incident with his supervisor which occurred on 8 October 2007. UNDT...

UNDT noted that the procedure to be followed for the given position to be re-titled and re-classified had not been completed by the time the Applicant submitted her request to the UNDT. UNDT concluded that no administrative decision had yet been made by the time the request for suspension of action was submitted to UNDT and considered by same. UNDT therefore held that the request had to be considered inadmissible, nothing preventing the Applicant from contesting the forthcoming decision.

The Applicant can only challenge the decisions before the Joint Appeals Board and subsequently before the judge only the decisions for which she requested a management evaluation.
Since, neither in her introductory application nor in subsequent briefs or orally at the hearing, the applicant made explicit reference to the arguments contained in the request for management evaluation. The judge limits himself to examining the arguments expressly raised.
The refusal of the hierarchical superior to propose a staff member for promotion is an administrative decision that can be challenged. In the...

The High commissioner is not bound to follow the recommendations of the Appointments, Promotion, and Postings Commission, but he cannot grant a promotion without the situation of the eligible official having been examined by the Commission. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration must apply the regulation in force. It is up to the...