Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that therefore UNDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before UNAT for consideration. UNAT held that UNDT’s analysis of the applicable deadlines contained several legal errors and that there was no legal authority for UNDT to commence the running of the sixty-day limitation period from the end of the Ombudsman’s settlement negotiations, rather than the date on which the staff member received notification of the administrative decision to be contested. UNAT held that for UNDT to commence the running of the sixty-day period in a manner inconsistent with Staff Rule 11. 2(c) violated the statutory prohibition in Article 8(3) against UNDT suspending or waiving the deadline for seeking management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT dismissed Mr Wu’s appeal, affirmed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, and vacated the UNDT judgment.