The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.
The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.
The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...
In the present case, according to the Applicant’s own submissions, he was not in a situation of “an absolute impossibility” of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it “to be perfect”. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...
The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).
In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.
The Dispute Tribunal had no record of any case filed by the Applicant ever having been transferred to it from JDC when the new system of internal justice at the United Nations took force in July 2009.
Taking into consideration the Applicant’s subsequent failure to pursue the claim for over 12 years, and the absence of any record of a case transferred to it, the Tribunal does not consider itself seized of the application filed in 2007, before the JDC.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the application is not receivable.
The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the UNAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member’s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the UNDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member’s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.
Nevertheless...
The UNAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant’s attorney’s personal circumstances.
The UNAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan’s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan’s exceptional circumstances—including severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...
Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...
The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the UNICEF Field Office (“CFO”) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, “Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter”. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.
The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...
The UNAT held that, Mr. Lago’s reliance on additional evidence without filing a motion, was inadmissible.
The UNAT confirmed that, there was no evidence that a specific request for an occupational health evaluation, made by Mr. Lago, in an individual capacity to an appropriate official, was refused or ignored. Additionally, Mr. Lago’s requests mirrored his persistent attempts to challenge a perceived wrong, which on its own cannot be perceived as an implied administrative decision.
The UNAT concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of a clear request capable of giving rise to an...
