����AV

UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/028, UNDT/2013/029 and UNDT/2013/076). UNAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. UNAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that UNDT is competent to review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

UNAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2015/100, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that a UNRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the UN Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, UNAT reiterated that UNAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

UNAT found that UNDT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

UNAT denied the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the UNDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before UNDT with specific consideration of the following: UNDT’s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; UNDT’s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, UNDT’s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General’s reply...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright’s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration’s decision to terminate him. UNAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and UNDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright’s application receivable. UNAT held that in light of the UNDT’s error in receiving the application, the UNDT’s...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration’s decision to terminate him. UNAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and UNDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado’s application receivable. UNAT held that in light of the UNDT’s error in receiving the application, the UNDT’s...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration’s decision to terminate him. UNAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and UNDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty’s application receivable. UNAT held that in light of UNDT’s error in receiving the application, the UNDT’s...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...