����AV

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...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2014/007. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala’s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of UNDT in deeming Ms Fiala’s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for UNDT, UNAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant’s case as UNDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

UNAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. UNAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that while only final judgments of the UNDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. UNAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute UNDT exceeding its jurisdiction. UNAT further noted that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, UNAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. UNAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute. Accordingly, UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant’s due process rights. UNAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before UNDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.