Article 8.1

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

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...

The UNAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The UNAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the UNAT.

The UNAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the UNDT. The UNAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

The underlying reason behind the Applicant’s FTA not being renewed was the fact that he could not obtain a visa to join his duty station. In the case at hand, the Applicant was not able to demonstrate that the decision not to renew his FTA beyond its expiration date was illegal, arbitrary or tainted by ulterior motives. As per the legal framework, an FTA does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal, and shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment. In addition, obtaining a visa was, indeed, a condition sine...

UNAT was not persuaded that UNDT erred in its judgment. UNAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to UNDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. UNAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the UNDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. UNAT held that the settlement...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that UNDT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. UNAT held that UNDT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the UNDT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the UNDT...

UNAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. UNAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.