Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the UNDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the UNDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The UNAT agreed with the finding of the UNDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The UNAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer’s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...

UNAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. UNDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. UNAT dismissed the appeals. UNAT confirmed UNDT’s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly’s decision to abolish the posts. UNAT noted that, while in other aspects, UNDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. UNAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that UNDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...