Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent’s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

UNAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the UNRWA DT that the Appellant’s application was irreceivable. UNAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. UNAT held that the Appellant’s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

UNDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova’s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

UNDT held that the Application was receivable on the ground that a decision not to select a candidate for a post is an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. UNDT held that the Application was not res judicata. UNDT noted that the issue in the present case regarded a different administrative decision from the one deemed not receivable in a previous Judgment (Case No. UNDT/NBI/2013/014). UNDT held that the Applicant had knowledge of the decision not to appoint him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General post on 22 May 2013 and that time for a request for...

The UNDT found that there was change of official duty station and that, as a result, the application of Entebbe’s post adjustment rate and payment of DSA for only 30 days were lawful. The Tribunal also dismissed all the other Applicant’s contentions. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal examined the receivability of the application given that the parties disagreed on the date on which the Applicant ought to have known of the decision. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. Receivability – Notification of an administrative decision: The Administration is obliged to communicate...

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration’s refusal to grant a permanent...