2010-Ģ��ƵAT-046

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ģ��ƵAT RoP. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ģ��ƵDT had erred on questions of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in dismissing her application. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to promote her to the P-4 level. Ģ��ƵDT found that only the appeal against the denial of promotion during the 2007 Promotion Session was receivable. Ģ��ƵDT noted that the Applicant had attached to her application her request to the Secretary-General for administrative review but did not refer to the arguments made in the request. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had failed to specify in what respects the non-promotion decision violated Staff Rules 4. 2 and 4. 3, and that she had failed to establish any irregularity during the 2007 Promotion Session. Ģ��ƵDT further found that the Ģ��ƵHCR��s Appointments, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) had considered the Applicant��s entire career during its review of her recourse. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

An Appellant must identify which of the five grounds for appeal set out in Article 2. 1 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute forms the legal basis of the appeal.

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

Vangelova

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement