¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the UNDT’s lack of jurisdiction, UNAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. UNAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that there was one...

UNAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, UNAT found that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. UNAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with UNDT’s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT...

UNAT held that there was no reason to interfere with UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving UNDT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that UNDT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. UNAT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...

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 rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. UNAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the UNDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of UNDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, UNAT clarified, did not mean that UNDT had dismissed the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with UNDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before UNDT. UNAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before UNAT and therefore UNAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.