2019-UNAT-962

2019-UNAT-962, Amineddine

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

As preliminary matters, UNAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant’s in-session motion, viewed by UNAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the Appellant sought to re-argue and re-try the merits of his application to UNDT. For Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/26, UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General extended the management evaluation or specified conditions for extending it. UNAT held there was no evidence of an implied extension in the form of any settlement negotiations or mediation process conducted by UNOMS. UNAT held that the Appellant’s requests for assistance from UNOMS alone were not sufficient to extend the deadline for requesting management evaluation. For Job Opening 87684, UNAT held that UNDT had erred in reversing the extension of time to file an application which it had previously granted and, as a result, in finding that the application was time-barred. Noting that the Appellant had relied in good faith on the extension and prepared and filed his application by the new deadline, UNAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to reverse the extension on different grounds to the detriment of the Appellant as it resulted in the application being time-barred and dismissed. UNAT dismissed the appeal regarding Job Openings 2016/038 and 2016/026. UNAT upheld the appeal regarding Job Opening 87684, remanding the matter to UNDT for a determination of the application on its merits.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant applied for three positions for which he was not selected. He contested these non-selection decisions before UNDT. UNDT held that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae because he had not filed a timely request for management evaluation.

Legal Principle(s)

Only the Secretary-General has the discretion to extend the deadline for management evaluation.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Amineddine

Entity

UNTSO

Case Number(s)

2019-1261

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York