51�Թ�

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that, in the present case, there is no dispute that the decision was unilaterally made by the administration and that it involved the exercise of a power or the performance of a statutory instrument. The dispute is on whether the decision adversely affected the rights of the Applicant and produced direct legal consequences.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s argument that “UNOPS not only decided to charge [him], but also to maintain him in an indefinite status of “charged person,” leaving him indeterminately prosecuted; since as—at the time of the Application—he had...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the UNDT judgment concerning her entitlements. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. UNAT recalled that UNDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, UNAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. UNAT held that the Appellant’s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of...

The Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

1) With regard to Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The only decision under Case No. UNDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent’s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant’s case. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione materia. As a first step, a staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision, had to submit to the Secretary-General in writing a request for a management evaluation of the administrative decision. In this case, the Applicant did not provide in his application any document showing that he had filed a request for management evaluation, thus failing to meet the mandatory first step. The Tribunal also found that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. The Applicant filed his application over seven...

The Tribunal held that the evidence before it showed that the Applicant had signed a contract with UNOPS governed by the terms and conditions of the UNOPS Individual Contractor Agreement which, among others, provided that the Applicant had a status of an independent contractor, and was not to be regarded, for any purpose, as a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the 51�Թ�. Therefore, the Applicant, not being a staff member of UNOPS or any other entity of the 51�Թ�, had no locus standi before the Tribunal. As a result, the application was struck out as being not...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...