Â鶹APP

Noting that UNDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. UNAT found no fault with UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

UNAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. UNAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a UNDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. UNAT found no errors of fact or law by UNDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. UNAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-UNAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that UNAT strike certain paragraphs from it. UNAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that his application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. UNAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. UNAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), UNDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. UNAT held, in agreement with UNDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/017. UNAT noted that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. UNAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held...

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that UNDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, UNAT held there was merit to the appeal. UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by UNDT. UNAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. UNAT upheld UNDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. UNAT granted the appeal in...