�山����

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...

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 process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

UNAT found that UNDT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that despite acknowledging that under UNAT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, UNDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

UNAT held that the UNDT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. UNAT held that the decision to...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, UNAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

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...

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant’s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

UNAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant’s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal.