Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant’s application to UNDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant’s claim that UNDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant’s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the UNRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that UNRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. UNAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. UNAT held that there was no evidence that UNRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant’s...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. UNAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, UNAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, UNAT...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging UNDT’s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual’s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before UNDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that UNRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...