¹ú²úAV

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant’s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did not make it not receivable, noting that there was nothing in the UNDT Statute which prevented UNDT from receiving such motions or requests. On the 2015 decision, UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione personae as the contested decision could not have adversely affected the individual’s terms of appointment as a former staff member. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that since the Appellant had not maintained any of the terms of his former appointment, including the right to be re-employed, there was insufficient nexus between his former employment that ended in 2010 and the impugned decision in 2015 not to re-employ him and that therefore the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law by addressing the merits of an application that was not receivable and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken from the record. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.