Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the UNDT’s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on UNDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. UNAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her UNRWA official service file. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. UNAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the UNRWA DT’s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. UNAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of UNAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before UNDT, UNAT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. UNAT held that it was not the task of UNDT (or UNAT)...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. UNAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. UNAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. UNAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, UNAT upheld the UNDT’s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the UNIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay’s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. UNAT held that it was correct to conclude, as UNDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

UNAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before UNDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the UNDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. UNAT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. UNAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

UNAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; UNDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. UNAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of UNDT regarding the abolition of her post. UNAT recalled the broad discretion of UNDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of UNDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...