Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, UNAT held that UNDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

UNAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, UNDT undertook a final review of the Appellant’s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. UNAT held there was no basis to disagree with UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. UNAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.

UNAT noted that when the new system was created, UNDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the UNDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered appeals of judgment Nos. UNDT/2010/075 and UNDT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the UNOV premises, UNAT noted that UNDT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, UNAT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. UNAT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). UNAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. UNAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. UNAT noted that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...