¹ú²úAV

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization.  The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made.  Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.  

The UNAT found...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the UNDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal.  In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the UNAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision.  Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal.  The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022).  Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case.  With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7  May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the UNAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

UNAT held that UNDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. UNAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. UNAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

UNAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, UNDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the UNDT’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. UNAT held that the UNRWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that UNRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...