É«¿âTV

The Applicant claims that the Administration’s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.

In the Tribunal’s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...

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 by the Secretary-General. UNAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the UNDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. UNAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku’s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, UNDT. UNAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku’s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. UNAT held that the issue for UNDT’s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. UNAT held that the issues of...

UNAT held that the nature of the contested decision before UNDT was not entirely clear. On the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, UNAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the UNDT judgment on this point. UNAT held that UNDT failed to deal with the Appellant’s claim of harassment and discrimination. UNAT held that the Appellant’s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...

On the Appellant’s claim for his name not to appear in the UNAT judgment, UNAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before UNDT and UNAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. UNAT held that there was no...

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...

Transferred JAB cases are governed by the UNDT Statute. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal on exceptional circumstances are wrong and should not be followed. Ignorance of the law held not relevant. Where the UNDT Statute is ambiguous, interpretation should preserve rights and uphold justice so far as the language permits. Outcome: The appeal was submitted within time and is receivable.

UNDT found that the Applicant, requested on two occasions to make the necessary corrections to her application, had failed to do so. UNDT dismissed the application finding that the Applicant is no longer interested in pursuing her case.

The application is prima facie not receivable before the UN Dispute Tribunal as it was filed, without leave, on 2 February 2010 and relates to a decision taken on 10 January 2008. The application was not pending before the former UN Administrative Tribunal when it ceased operations on 31 December 2009 and accordingly, this is not a case transferred from the UN Administrative Tribunal. No extension or waiver is granted and the application is rejected in its entirety.

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the UNDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the UNDT Statute that the UNDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...