Â鶹APP

UNAT held 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 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...

On receivability, UNAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the UNJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the UNJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the UNJSPF Regulations, UNAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. UNAT held that the only proper course for UNDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. UNAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by not...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member was unlawful since it did not fully comply with its obligations under Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) to take all reasonable and bona fides efforts to consider her for available suitable posts, as an alternative to the abolished one. UNAT noted that the phrase ¡°suitable posts¡± is not defined in the Staff Rules and that nothing in the language of Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) indicates that the obligation of the Administration to consider the redundant staff member for suitable posts, vacant...