�山����

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in its determination. UNAT held that there was no legal basis for UNDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. UNAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to UNDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. UNAT held that as of 30 June 2009, UNAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant’s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. UNAT found no error in UNDT’s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT summary judgment.

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT’s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT’s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

UNAT held that UNDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT’s conclusion that the Appellant’s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. UNAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. UNAT dismissed the appeal the...

UNAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. UNAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined to receive the Appellant’s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before UNDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, UNAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. UNAT held that knowledge of the...

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 recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...