Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.

UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

UNAT found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. UNAT found that UNDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run ¡°from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ¡± As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, UNAT found that UNDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT set aside UNDT¡¯s judgment and remanded the case back to UNDT to have the...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. UNAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former UN Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. UNAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the former UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. UNDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that UNDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, UNAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. UNAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that resignation results in a break in service, which may, in turn, disqualify a staff member for consideration for a permanent appointment. UNAT held that if a staff member took issue with the requirement for a break in service, he or she should have challenged it at the time by requesting management evaluation. UNAT held that Mr Hajdari never challenged his separation from service from UNMIK or, at any time after his arrival in New York, made any request to human resources to be reinstated at the time. UNAT held that Mr Hajdari¡¯s...

UNAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...