¹ú²úAV

UNAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the UNDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. UNDT/2009/052) in her request for UNDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the UNDT Statute could not be disregarded. UNAT approved judgment No. UNDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of UNDT in Rosca. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB’s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that UNDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

UNAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJSPB decision.

UNAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, UNDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.

UNAT was not persuaded that UNDT erred in its judgment. UNAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to UNDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the UNDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. UNAT held that the settlement...

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as UNAT had consistently held that UNDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. UNAT allowed the appeal and set aside the UNDT Order.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that, when the Appellant contested before UNAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. UNAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant’s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. UNAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...