Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The UNAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The UNAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the UNDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The UNAT also denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The UNAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the UNDT. The UNAT observed that given...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.

The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.

He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give UNDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. UNAT held that it was not within UNDT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant’s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...