�山����

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT’s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. UNAT held that UNDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. UNAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman’s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. UNAT held that there was no legal authority for UNDT to commence the...

UNAT held that it could find no fault with the UNDT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with UNAT’s jurisprudence. UNAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the UNDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before UNDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of UNICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about UNICEF’s failure to protect him. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

On the Appellant’s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, UNAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. UNAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of law...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with UNDT. UNAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant’s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. UNAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

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 rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the evidence showed that UNDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

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...