����AV

UNAT noted that when the new system was created, UNDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT accordingly held that UNDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that UNDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

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.

In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr. 1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. UNAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant’s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel’s return or replacement. UNAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...

UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). UNAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. UNAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. UNAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have UNAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. UNAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having UNAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. UNAT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...