2010-Ģ��ƵAT-045

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ģ��ƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to promote her to the P-4 level during the 2007 promotion session. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that the decision not to promote her had been tainted with a procedural flaw. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board had committed an error by rejecting the recourse submitted by the Applicant on 25 March 2008. Ģ��ƵDT found that, even though the fact sheet compiled by the Administration contained errors, the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that, if the inaccurate information had not been included in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing a judgment of Ģ��ƵDT is unlikely to succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified or the case remanded to Ģ��ƵDT unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2. 1 (a) to (e), of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Tsoneva

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement