Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. UNAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the UNRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s finding...

UNAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the UNSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. UNAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the UNSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. UNAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the UNJSPF decision before appealing to UNAT. UNAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. UNAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...