The staff member appealed seven UNDT judgments. UNAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.
UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration’s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. UNAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant’s written or oral submissions to persuade UNAT that UNDT made any error of law or fact in...
UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as UNDT correctly concluded that applications to UNDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that there was no error in UNDT’s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT’s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of UNDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. UNAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the UNDT’s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. UNAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. UNAT opined that the...
UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that applications to the UNDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant’s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the UNDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...
UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. UNAT did not find that Mr Gehr’s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. UNAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. UNAT allowed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment in its entirety.
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office’s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. UNAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...
As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-418. UNAT held that UNDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member’s appointment. UNAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...
UNAT held that UNDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. UNAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. UNAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant’s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...
