51�Թ�

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT accepted UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

UNAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that UNDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. UNAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute, however, UNAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s allegation that the case management of UNDT was flawed. UNAT held that the re...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against UNDT Orders. UNAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. UNAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of UNDT in the management of cases. Further, UNAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before UNDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

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 held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.

UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT’s order for production of the OIOS...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the UNDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which UNDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General’s submissions on the basis of “minimal showing” that the Applicant had been fairly considered. UNAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the UNAT Statute...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the UNDT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.