�山����

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

UNAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. UNAT held that the text of UNRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, UNRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of UNRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, UNAT noted that UNRWA found that the Appellant’s evidence...

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 preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in UNDT’s proceedings by way of summary judgment, UNAT held that UNDT’s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. UNAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that UNDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

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 was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

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...