51�Թ�

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. UNAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, UNAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. UNAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member’s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO’s personnel instruction should have led to a...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, UNAT held that UNDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as “D-1...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of UNRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT’s finding. UNAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

UNAT considered Mr Krioutchkov’s appeal as well as the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. UNAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov’s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov’s application was receivable by UNDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...