¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

The issue for determination by UNAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the UNDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before UNDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General’s counsel of record before UNAT. UNAT held that in the absence of any published UNDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of UNDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-297. UNAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. UNAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a UNDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. UNAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that UNRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, UNAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant’s challenge to the Commissioner-General’s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...