2010-UNAT-047, Attandi

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2010/038. UNAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. UNAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by UNDT. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2010/038, UNAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal, demonstrating that the UNDT judgment had one or more of the five defects mentioned in Article 2. 1(a) to (e) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment did not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal defects based on any of the grounds urged by the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT order and judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and sought suspension of action. When the matter came up before UNDT on 5 January 2010, after being transferred from the Joint Appeals Board (JAB), the Applicant was invited to complete his statement of appeal, but he failed to do so. UNDT issued Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) granting the Applicant time to complete his appeal by 15 February 2010, with the rider that failure would entail his case getting struck out. In judgment No. UNDT/2010/038 UNDT struck out the application and noted that the Applicant had not provided any reasonable explanation as to why he did not comply with the UNDT Order.

Legal Principle(s)

The Appellant must satisfy UNAT that the UNDT judgment has one or more of the five defects mentioned in Article 2. 1(a) to (e) of the UNAT Statute.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Attandi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location :