�山����

UNAT noted that when the new system was created, UNDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because UNDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. UNAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

UNAT held that that UNDT had correctly established that the silence of the UNEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. UNAT held the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. UNAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member’s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. UNAT also held that as no request for...

UNAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. UNAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an “administrative decision” within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the UNDT Statute. Based on the staff member’s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC’s renumbering exercise, UNAT held...

On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of...

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 an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. UNAT held that UNDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by UNAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

The Applicant did not actively or diligently pursue his case because: he failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect to his challenge against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment; he had been informed about the Status Conference by his Counsel and had failed to make an appearance or to contact the Tribunal to give reasons for his absence; his Counsel had advised that as far as she was concerned, the substantive matter in the application had been resolved; and from the documents tendered by the Respondent, the Tribunal was convinced that the substantive matter in the...