¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that UNDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. UNAT held that UNDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President’s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on a website were matters of internal organisation which did not constitute acts adversely affective staff member’s rights and, as such, did not constitute a challengeable administrative decision. UNAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that UNDT made any error of law or fact in rejecting his application. UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that the criterion for summary judgment was met. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any legal or factual basis for his submission that the principle of audi alteram partem had been disregarded by UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.