����AV

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the UNDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. UNAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. UNAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant’s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. UNAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant’s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or “initial payment”...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the UNDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. UNAT dismissed the...

UNAT held that UNJSPF’s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by UNJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to UNAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, UNAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. UNAT held that Ms. Larriera’s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera’s appeal was...