51ÁÔÆæ

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 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 vacated UNDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, UNAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

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...