É«¿âTV

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. UNAT held that he did not demonstrate that UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. UNAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. UNAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the UNDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an appeal of UNDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. UNAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by UNAT on her application for a suspension of action. UNAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before UNDT. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.

On the request for the oral hearing, UNAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. UNAT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether UNDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, UNAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) UNDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. UNDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. UNDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

UNDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. UNDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant’s filing of his application was prompt and...