�山����

Noting the broad discretion of UNDT with respect to case management, UNAT held that there was no merit in the contention that UNDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that UNDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, UNAT noted that these matters had been repeatedly raised before UNDT and that UNDT had informed the Appellant that it was limited to deciding only the issue of his reassignment. UNAT noted that the Appellant had raised other matters which were dismissed by UNDT as no administrative review had been sought thereof and UNAT held that UNDT had properly declined jurisdiction and that the appeal failed on that ground. UNAT held that UNDT correctly judged the validity of the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion in administrative matters. UNAT affirmed the finding of UNDT that the reassignment was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.