Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held the UNDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. UNAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella’s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit’s response, on the basis that it was the role of UNDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that UNDT had the inherent power to...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held the UNDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. UNAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah’s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit’s response, on the basis that it was the role of UNDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that UNDT had the inherent power to...

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 considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT’s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.