¹ú²úAV

The UNAT first reviewed the Secretary-General’s claim that the UNDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto’s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP.  The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended.  The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal.  The UNAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

The UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately.  It found that in this way, the UNRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The UNAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the UNRWA DT on 12 August 2022.  Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment. 

The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae.  UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member.  He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment.  Moreover, there was no offer of...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The UNAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal.  As the UNDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019.  Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021. 

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...