É«¿âTV

UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. UNAT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. UNAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

UNAT held that the UNDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. UNAT stated the principle that UNDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes UNDT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request UNDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. UNAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when UNDT committed an error of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, UNAT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the UNDT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the UNDT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the UNDT RoP. UNAT set aside the UNDT judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT considered that UNDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke’s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. UNAT held that when it determines that UNDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. UNAT clarified that this did not...

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

UNAT held there was no error in the UNRWA DT’s finding that the application was time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept UNRWA’s late reply in circumstances where UNRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering UNRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration’s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. UNAT held...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.