��ż���

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 Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. 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 observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ’s application was receivable before the UNDT. The UNAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The UNAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The UNAT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The UNAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT dismissed Mr. Qassem’s request for an oral hearing. The UNAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”.

The UNAT found that since Mr. Qassem’s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the UNDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

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 UNAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the UNDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane’s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

The application is denied.

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 United Nations. 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 Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.