ºÚÁÏרÇø

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 ºÚÁÏרÇø 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 Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the ºÚÁÏרÇø. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal's Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT found that AAL was given notice of the need for her to return to the duty station, as well as sufficient opportunity to apply for sick leave. However, she did not request such sick leave, nor did she return to work, leaving no option for the Administration other than to place her on SLWOP. She also failed to provide evidence that there were ¡°compelling personal circumstances¡± so as to engender a decision to allow her to continue to telecommute from outside her official duty station. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in finding that AAL...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT found that UNDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. UNAT found no reversible error in UNDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...

On an appeal by the Secretary-General, UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the applications were receivable. UNAT noted that Article 2(1) of the UNDT Statute limits the UNDT¡¯s jurisdiction to hearing appeals against administrative decisions. UNAT defined an administrative decision as a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. UNAT noted that, with the...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal and the staff members¡¯ cross-appeal. UNAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that the applications were receivable because the contested decision would have an adverse impact on the staff members. With respect to the merits of the appeal, UNAT noted that the salary entitlements of staff members are statutory in nature and may be unilaterally amended by the General Assembly. UNAT further noted that an individual loss caused by a unilateral variation of a validly concluded contract poses no legal obstacle to the exercise of...

UNAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of UNAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the UNAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of UNAT. UNAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the UNDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the UNAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the UNDT has: (a) exceeded its...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision purportedly taken by that agency. The Tribunal further recalled that UNRWA does not fall under the jurisdiction of UNDT. Accordingly, the Applicant had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The Application was thus dismissed as non-receivable.