�山����

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/104 and UNDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, UNAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the UNDT judgment concerning her entitlements. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. UNAT recalled that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. UNAT held that UNRWA’s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. UNAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant’s claim that the UNRWA Area Staff Rules...

UNAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that UNRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. UNAT...

UNAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. UNAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, UNAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT’s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant’s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT’s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...