����AV

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the “contested decision” as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

UNAT held that the UNDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. UNAT held that to the extent that the UNDT held that some of the Appellant’s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, UNDT did not err in fact or law and UNAT upheld such conclusions. UNAT held that there were errors by UNDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the UNDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB’s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the UNOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the UNDT and was therefore not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the UN, through UNAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by UNAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. UNAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. UNAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the UN, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

UNAT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; UNAT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. UNAT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...

UNAT noted that appeals from UNDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if UNDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the UNDT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. UNAT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNDT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...