2010-Ģ��ƵAT-096

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member. Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ģ��ƵDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant Ģ��ƵAT��s intervention. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly represented before Ģ��ƵDT. 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 appoint her to a P-5 post and claimed that she had been improperly excluded from the promotion. Ģ��ƵDT found that the decision not to appoint the Applicant to the P-5 position was valid and lawful. However, Ģ��ƵDT found that there was ��inappropriate imprecision and confusion of the matrices�� which contributed to the Applicant��s frustration and justified an award of compensation. Ģ��ƵDT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD 1,000.

Legal Principle(s)

An appeal is not an opportunity for the parties to reargue their case. It does not fall to Ģ��ƵAT to conduct a new trial.

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

Antaki

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement