Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. UNAT held that UNDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration’s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. UNAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant’s written or oral submissions to persuade UNAT that UNDT made any error of law or fact in rejecting the application as premature. UNAT held that there was no legitimacy in the Appellant raising the merits of the case with UNAT as this had been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal against the UNDT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s application as premature. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that UNDT had no legal basis to proceed by way of summary judgment. UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the criterion for a summary judgment was met upon determination that the facts were clear and the only issue remaining, whether the contested decision was capable of being appealed, was a matter of law. UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s proposition that the UNDT decision to proceed by way of summary judgment offended the principle of audi alteram partem on the basis that his application was given due consideration by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.