¹ú²úAV

2017-UNAT-809, Mbaa

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing to provide the information to UNDT, and then seeking to provide UNAT with an explanation for the delay, amounted to an attempt to have a de novo hearing of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and he had not identified any errors or failure of jurisdiction by UNDT to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice but without termination indemnity, which was imposed for misconduct in the form of attempted theft. UNDT found that the application was not receivable because it was time-barred as a result of the Applicant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits and more than one year after the statutory deadline.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not the function of UNAT to hear a de novo application.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.