¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. UNAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the UNAT Statute. UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT’s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

UNAT held that the UNDT properly dismissed the Appellant’s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. UNAT held that the decision to...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of UNAT under Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute by not asserting that UNDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the UNAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law. UNAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. UNAT noted that the minutes upon which UNDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. UNAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. UNAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. UNAT...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether UNDT erred in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. UNAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. UNAT further noted that UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. UNAT found no fault...

UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...