Ãå±±½ûµØ

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The Applicant did not seek a waiver of suspension of the deadline facing her, nor did she meet the deadline. For this reason, the application is not receivable ratione temporis as it is time-barred.

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7  May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The UNAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The UNAT found that the staff member’s due...

UNAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. UNAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. UNAT held that any alleged error by UNDT in considering the merits was moot. 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 the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.