51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the UNAT Statute. UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT’s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

UNAT held that the UNDT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. UNAT held that the decision to...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of UNRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the UNRWA DT Statute prevents UNRWA DT from receiving a case which...

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.