UNAT held that it could discern no error in UNDT’s computation of the applicable time limits. UNAT considered that the UNDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
-
Article 1.2(c)
1
-
Article 10.1
2
-
Article 10.2
9
-
Article 10.5
11
-
Article 10.5(a)
5
-
Article 10.5(b)
5
-
Article 10.6
10
-
Article 10.8
1
-
Article 10.9
8
-
Article 11
29
-
Article 11.1
49
-
Article 11.2
11
-
Article 11.3
22
-
Article 11.4
14
-
Article 18
1
-
Article 18.1
6
-
Article 2
25
-
Article 2.1
155
-
Article 2.1
9
-
Article 2.1(a)
267
-
Article 2.1(a)
20
-
Article 2.1(b)
4
-
Article 2.1(c)
3
-
Article 2.1(d)
24
-
Article 2.1(e)
33
-
Article 2.10
35
-
Article 2.2
5
-
Article 2.2(a)
2
-
Article 2.3
18
-
Article 2.4(b)
8
-
Article 2.5
62
-
Article 2.6
2
-
Article 2.7
1
-
Article 2.8
1
-
Article 2.9
20
-
Article 2.9(a)
1
-
Article 2(b)
1
-
Article 2(c)
2
-
Article 2(e)
5
-
Article 24
1
-
Article 3.2
1
-
Article 4
2
-
Article 5
2
-
Article 6
1
-
Article 6.2
1
-
Article 7
11
-
Article 7.1
13
-
Article 7.1(c)
10
-
Article 7.2
3
-
Article 7.3
8
-
Article 7.4
3
-
Article 7.5
9
-
Article 8
1
-
Article 8.1
5
-
Article 8.1(c)
8
-
Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
1
-
Article 8.2
11
-
Article 8.3
84
-
Article 9
13
-
Article 9.1
11
-
Article 9.1(a)
23
-
Article 9.1(b)
22
-
Article 9.2
34
-
Article 9.3
4
-
Article 9.4
4
-
Article 9.5
16
-
Article 9(b)
1
Showing 1 - 1 of 1