äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The case was referred to the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (¡°UNOMS¡±).

Upon confirmation from UNOMS that the referral was accepted as per para. 7 of Practice Direction No. 3 (Mediation), the proceedings would be suspended for 30 calendar days.

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the UNAT judgment, UNAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before UNDT and UNAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. UNAT held that there was no...

The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the decision of 31 August 2011 was a reiteration of the decision given to the Applicant on 30 March 2009, before Sprauten UNDT/2011/094. The UNDT found that the decision of 31 August 2011 was made, or should have been made, pursuant to the directions and order of the Tribunal in Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 (see paras. 87¨C88), and it thus cannot be viewed as a mere reiteration of the decision dated 30 March 2009. The purpose of the Tribunal¡¯s order in para. 87 of Sprauten UNDT/2011/094 was to direct the Administration to make a new...

Receivability - Article 7.4 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure requires that any application seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement must be filed within 90 calendar days of the last day for implementation as specified in the agreement and where dates for the implementation are not stated, the application must be filed within thirty calendar days of the signing of the settlement agreement.An examination of the Settlement Agreement between the parties shows that no date was stipulated for its implementation. Any application challenging it must therefore be brought within 30 days...