�山����

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...

The Appellant sought reversal of the UNDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant’s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the “decision” of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant’s official status file and to block him from being rehired, UNAT held there was no final, appealable...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT’s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

UNAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. UNAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov’s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. UNAT held, however, that UNDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov’s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. UNAT held that Mr Dolgopolov’s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...