51�Թ�

UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether UNDT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, UNAT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, UNDT was not competent to consider the issue...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. UNAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by UNDT. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT’s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. UNAT rejected the appeal.

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

UNAT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

UNAT found that UNDT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant’s ex-wife from his final emoluments, UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to UNDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with UNDT. UNAT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. UNAT held that UNDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. UNAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...