51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT was not persuaded that UNDT erred in its judgment. UNAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to UNDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the UNDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. UNAT held that the settlement...

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that, when the Appellant contested before UNAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. UNAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant’s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. UNAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...

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...