�山����

On the Appellants’ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent’s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants’ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants’ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. UNAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

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 held that the Appellant’s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since UNDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

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...