É«¿âTV

Unat a examin¨¦ les deux appels de M. Attandi, contre l'ordonnance n ¡ã 02 (NBI / 2010) et le jugement n ¡ã UNT / 2010/038. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'ordonnance n ¡ã 02 (NBI / 2010) ¨¦tait une directive pour l'appelant et non un jugement contre lequel un appel pouvait ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'un appel contre l'ordonnance n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir parce qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un jugement d¨¦finitif rendu par UNDT. En ce qui concerne le jugement n ¡ã UNT / 2010/038, Unat a soutenu que bien que l'appel soit certainement ¨¤ recevoir car l'affaire de l'appelant avait ¨¦t¨¦ retir¨¦e, il n'y avait aucun m¨¦rite dans...

UNAT consid¨¦r¨¦ le jugement n ¡ã UNT / 2009/052 et UNDT / 2009/062. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appel ¨¤ la Commission des appels conjoints n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais et que UNDT n'avait pas comp¨¦tence pour les renoncer. Unat a jug¨¦ que la demande avant undt n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir ratione tempis. UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et annul¨¦ les jugements UNDT.

Unat a soutenu que l'appelant n'avait pas montr¨¦ comment UNT a d¨¦pass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence ou n'a pas exerc¨¦ sa juridiction. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas identifi¨¦ d'erreur sur une question de droit. Unat a soutenu qu'il n'avait aucune raison de ne pas ¨ºtre d'accord avec la d¨¦tention de l'UNDT qu'aucun pr¨¦judice institutionnel, ni repr¨¦sailles, n'a jou¨¦ un r?le dans le non-renouvellement du contrat de l'appelant. Unat a not¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de retirer le portefeuille de l'appelant avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise avant d'avoir fait un rapport d'actes r¨¦pr¨¦hensibles. UNAT a not¨¦ que la non...

UNAT considered judgment Nos. UNDT/2009/052 and UNDT/2009/062. UNAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that UNDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgments.

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. UNAT held that it had no reason to disagree with UNDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. UNAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

UNAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. UNDT/2010/038. UNAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. UNAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by UNDT. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2010/038, UNAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...