Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due...

UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT held that the UNDT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. UNAT held that the decision to...

UNAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

UNAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. UNAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.