51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT held that the UNDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. UNAT held that to the extent that the UNDT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, UNDT did not err in fact or law and UNAT upheld such conclusions. UNAT held that there were errors by UNDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the UNDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent’s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant’s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...

UNAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-UNAT-036)). UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (UNDT/2009/052), which was disproved by UNAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

UNAT held that the UNDT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that it was open to UNDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. UNAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

UNAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant’s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel’s return or replacement. UNAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...