Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the UNDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. UNAT dismissed the...

As preliminary matters, UNAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant’s in-session motion, viewed by UNAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

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 held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. UNAT held that UNDT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. UNAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

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 held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant’s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. UNAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before UNDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. UNAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT’s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. UNAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the UNDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the UNDT Judgment, UNAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

UNAT held that the UNDT did not commit any errors when it found that Ms. Wenz’ application was irreceivable ratione materiae and that therefore, it did not have to address the question of whether the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that UNICEF’s participation in mediation efforts did not automatically extend the time limit for filing a request for management evaluation. UNAT found no fault in the UNDT’s finding that the Secretary-General was not estopped from raising the issue of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed...

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...