�山����

UNAT held that the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. UNDT/2011/080, UNAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the UNDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request UNAT to order his reinstatement. UNAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that UNDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...

UNAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that UNAT order UNDT to accept her applications. UNAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against UNDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). UNAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to UNAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, UNAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; UNAT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. UNAT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with UNDT’s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that while only final judgments of the UNDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. UNAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute UNDT exceeding its jurisdiction. UNAT further noted that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.