¹ú²úAV

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.  

The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.  

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable. 

The UNAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The UNAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The UNAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the UNAT Judgment. The UNAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The UNAT concluded...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal. 

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal.  The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the UNAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits.   The UNAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the UNDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear’s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration’s...

The UNAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the UNDT. The UNAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The UNAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the UNRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the UNRWA DT erred.  

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the UNDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the UNDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration’s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The UNAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The UNAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The UNAT found that the UNDT had made an error of fact...

The Applicant did not seek a waiver of suspension of the deadline facing her, nor did she meet the deadline. For this reason, the application is not receivable ratione temporis as it is time-barred.