����AV

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined to receive the Appellant’s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before UNDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, UNAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. UNAT held that knowledge of the...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant’s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant’s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the “decision” of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant’s official status file and to block him from being rehired, UNAT held there was no final, appealable...

As preliminary matters, UNAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant’s in-session motion, viewed by UNAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. UNAT further affirmed UNDT’s position that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred. UNAT, however, noted that UNDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. UNAT further noted that this error by UNDT did not adversely affect...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal was not receivable. UNAT held that it was well within UNDT’s jurisdiction and that UNDT had committed no error when it deemed the claim not receivable on the basis that it had not been subject to management evaluation. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that she only presented a new legal qualification descriptor of the challenged identified administrative decision, UNAT held that it did not merely constitute a new legal qualification, but a new request meant to expand the scope of the relief sought through her...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

The staff member appealed to UNAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the UNICEF job. UNAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an “official act” and as such carried with it “the presumption of regularity”. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...