51�Թ�

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

A a holder of an UN Volunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant’s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was “ITC”, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

i. The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant was never a staff member of ECA, DOS or any other entity of the United Nations. Accordingly, he had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The application was thus dismissed.

ii. The Tribunal also held that the application was barred by res judicata. It was recalled that the Tribunal had previously rejected an application by the Applicant contesting the same claims he raised in the present application. In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/078, the Tribunal had found that the Applicant was not a staff member and had no legal...

UNAT considered appeals of judgment Nos. UNDT/2010/075 and UNDT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the UNOV premises, UNAT noted that UNDT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, UNAT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. UNAT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...

UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the UNDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the UNAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the UNDT has: (a) exceeded its...

The Tribunal rescinds the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant and Orders: the reinstatement of the Applicant; that the Applicant be paid her salaries and entitlements from the date of her summary dismissal to the date of this judgment with interest at 8%; that the Applicant be compensated for the breach of her right to due process at the rate of two months net base salary; that compensation be fixed, should the Secretary-General decide in the interest of the Administration not to perform the obligation to reinstate the Applicant, at two years’ net base salary at the rate in effect on...

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction ratione personae as Defence Counsel at the ICTR who have a particular status, which is defined by the internal rules of the ICTR and the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda dated 24 September 1996.

The preliminary issue at stake was whether the Tribunal had competence ratione personae to examine this application. In this regard, the Tribunal found that, under the relevant UNDP rules, persons recruited under Service Contract are not staff members. It therefore considered that it did not have competence to adjudicate this case. It also found that the facts had clearly established that the Applicant had actually amicably settled the issue of the non renewal of his contract and received USD 9593 as compensation. The Tribunal therefore considered that the Applicant, who was a party to this...