�鶹��ý

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT’s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, UNAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.

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”...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-604 (Ocokoru). UNAT noted that in judgment 2015-UNAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the UNDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that the execution of the UNDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of UNDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. UNAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the UNAT Statute...

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 UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, UNAT agreed with the finding of UNRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. UNAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the UNDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of UNDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. UNAT dismissed the...