¹ú²úAV

Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic’s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General’s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by UNDT, UNAT held that the approach of UNDT did not merit the remedy...

UNAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. UNAT held that UNRWA’s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. UNAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant’s claim that the UNRWA Area Staff Rules...

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the UNDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). UNAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

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 held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. UNAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment dismissing the staff member’s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, UNAT held that UNDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that UNDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, UNAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.