¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered Mr Krioutchkov’s appeal as well as the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. UNAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov’s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov’s application was receivable by UNDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether UNDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant’s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. UNAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the UNDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-552), UNAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. UNAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). UNAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the UNRWA DT’s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. UNAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former UNWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant’s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. UNAT agreed with the...

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 there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

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 rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the