Temporal (ratione temporis)

UNAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. UNAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, UNAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

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.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from UNOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to UNOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to UNOPS, and to separate her from UNOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, UNAT found that UNDT did not err in holding that the Appellant’s challenges were time-barred. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from UNOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to UNDT’s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the UNDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. UNAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. UNAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

UNAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before UNRWA DT to be non-receivable. UNAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before UNRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT 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...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. UNAT held that the UNRWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that UNRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

UNAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and UNRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). UNAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. UNAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. UNAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...