ɫ��TV

UNAT held that the UNDT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that it was open to UNDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. UNAT held there was no error in the UNDT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. UNAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. UNAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

UNAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant’s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel’s return or replacement. UNAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and...

UNAT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. UNAT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new UNDT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. UNAT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to UNDT for consideration on merits. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment, and remanded the case to UNDT for a...

UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

UNAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). UNAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. UNAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. UNAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. UNAT found that UNDT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run “from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ” As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, UNAT found that UNDT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT set aside UNDT’s judgment and remanded the case back to UNDT to have the...