Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda’s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. UNAT held UNDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda’s application. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

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 the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. UNAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. UNAT held that UNDT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. UNAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

UNAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. UNAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before UNDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to UNDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, UNAT held there was no basis for vacating the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the UNDT’s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. UNAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that UNDT erred in its...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the UNDT’s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. UNAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the UNDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the UNDT Judgment, UNAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

UNAT was not able to detect any errors in the UNDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of UNAT.