2010-Ģ��ƵAT-049

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the alleged non-application of paragraph 48(a) of the Ģ��ƵHCR Procedural Guidelines for Appointments, Postings and Promotions (Procedural Guidelines), which establishes the rotation eligibility requirements for appointments, postings and promotions in duty stations grouped into three categories, H/A, B/C and D/E. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application in a summary judgment, holding that the Applicant had not contested any administrative decision.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeal is not the appropriate occasion to reply to the dispute in the first instance or to introduce new elements for consideration that were not put forward at the Ģ��ƵDT level.

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

Planas

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement