The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal’s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.
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...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. UNAT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. UNAT accordingly held that UNAT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant’s...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...
UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. UNAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ăĺ±±˝űµŘAdministrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. UNAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...
UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, UNDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. UNAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, UNDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. UNAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...
To the extent that the UNDT’s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, UNAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, UNAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which UNDT granted the withdrawal request. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant’s motivation in bringing his application. UNAT ordered that the recital of “Facts” in paragraphs 4 to 7 and “Considerations” in...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the “Observations” of UNDT. UNAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a UNDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. UNAT held that UNDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, “Observations” in the manner in which it did. UNAT held that, in light of the UNDT’s determination on the issue of receivability, UNDT had no jurisdiction to make “Observations” as it did. UNAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...
