Â鶹APP

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

The Appellant filed a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement. UNAT issued Order No. 188 (2014) noting the withdrawal and ordering the Registrar to close the case.

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. UNAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute which provided...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...

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 an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. UNAT held that UNDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT erred in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the UNDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. UNAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before UNDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. UNAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...