¹ú²úAV

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal.  The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022).  Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case.  With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.  

The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury’s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the UNDT was not receivable ratione materiae. 

The...

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 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.

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the UNAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request.  Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c).  Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela’s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.

The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are...

The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.

He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.