�山����

UNAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the UNHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, UNAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

UNAT held UNDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, UNAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant’s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. UNAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...

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.

Since it was ECOWAS and not UNSD that took the decision not to attribute the applicant for her contributions to the ECOWAS Poverty Profile, this decision is therefore not a decision in respect of which the respondent, ie, the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Office of the United Nations, has any responsibility. Even if the ultimate decision to exclude the applicant from attribution was that of ECOWAS, it could, nevertheless, be held that the administrative decision in question was that UNSD decided to accept the decision of ECOWAS in respect of the applicant, contrary to its...

Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant’s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months’ net base salary.

Under the given circumstances, the application for an extension of time could not be considered as an application on the merits. No exceptional circumstances for an extension of time could be found. Lack of legal counsel normally does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Since the Applicant had learned one month before the end of the time limit that OSLA would not take her case, it was appropriate and reasonable for the Applicant to submit an application by herself within the time limits.

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...

The mandate of UNDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former UNAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before UNDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending UNAT cases only. They do not include the power to revise UNAT judgements. Cases closed by judgments of former UNAT are res iudicata.