¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, UNDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that, in order for the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and UNAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of UNDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. UNAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. UNAT held that the need for translator services at UNAMI could...

UNAT noted that the reason given for the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract was a restructuring and that the Appellant conceded that the restructuring was properly done. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the opinion expressed by the Appellant’s Chief, that his performance deficiencies and shortcomings could justify the non-renewal of his contract, was immaterial. UNAT held that the Administration provided the Appellant with legitimate reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. UNAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the UNDT decision under appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that UNDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. UNAT held that the evidence...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s submissions were largely a reiteration of his arguments before UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that there was no indication that the non-renewal decision or other incidents amounted to harassment. UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it concluded that the behaviours at stake, even when viewed together, did not point to any kind of prohibited conduct in the sense of ST/SGB/2008/5. UNAT held that the UNDT’s findings that the advice given to the Appellant regarding uncertified sick leave was correct. UNAT held that the Appellant’s allegation that...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. UNAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of UNDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by UNDT...

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 preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. UNAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. UNAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...