2010-Ģ��ƵAT-051

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion on this issue had no errors and that the Appellant, who bore the burden of proof, had failed to discharge it. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵDT that the argument that Ģ��ƵHCR��s promotion system lacked transparency could not be the basis of the Ģ��ƵDT��s decision to rescind a decision to deny a promotion. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error by Ģ��ƵDT on questions of fact or law. 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 to deny her a promotion to the P-4 level during the promotion session conducted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Ģ��ƵHCR) in 2007. Ģ��ƵDT rendered judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2009/046, rejecting the application.

Legal Principle(s)

When Ģ��ƵAT hears an appeal, it does not simply re-try the case. The function of Ģ��ƵAT is to determine if the Dispute Tribunal has made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as prescribed in Article 2. 1 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. The Appellant has the burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that the judgment rendered by the Dispute Tribunal is defective. It follows that the Appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective. It is not sufficient for an Appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before the Dispute Tribunal.

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

Ilic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement