Â鶹APP

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, UNAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. UNAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of law...

UNAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and UNAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with UNDT. UNAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. UNAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the evidence showed that UNDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ¡°did not refer to any new fact or information¡± and was ¡°a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014¡±. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that despite acknowledging that under UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, UNDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.

UNAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. UNAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. UNAT held that UNDT erred by awarding...

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 UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.