Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that that UNDT had correctly established that the silence of the UNEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. UNAT held the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. UNAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Regarding the allegations that UNDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, UNAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant’s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

UNAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 11.1 of the UNDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. UNAT held that UNDT’s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited UNDT from extending the deadline for...

UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. UNDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Appellant contended that exceptional circumstances existed that would merit a waiver of the time limit, allowing his application to be admitted. UNAT noted that, in such an instance, it is the applicant’s responsibility to convince the tribunal of such circumstances. UNAT found that the Appellant did not overcome this hurdle before UNDT and held that UNDT did not err in rejecting the Appellant’s contentions that he had exceptional circumstances. UNAT further held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the Appellant’s reliance on erroneous advice...

UNAT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu’s appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal, regarding whether UNDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. UNAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. UNAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...