Article 7.3

The UNAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The UNAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The UNAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The UNAT denied the Director General’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members’ motion.

The UNAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The UNAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the UNAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The UNAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the UNDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, UNAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited UNAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic’s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General’s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by UNDT, UNAT held that the approach of UNDT did not merit the remedy...

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 issue for determination by UNAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the UNDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before UNDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General’s counsel of record before UNAT. UNAT held that in the absence of any published UNDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of UNDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...