�山����

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with UNDT’s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT...

UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. UNAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. UNAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. UNAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by UNAT on her application for a suspension of action. UNAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before UNDT. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties’ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant’s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal’s order—the use of the word “grounds” in a subheading instead of “issues” is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...