2012-Ģ��ƵAT-263

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2011/179. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ģ��ƵDT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Ģ��ƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the Appellant��s case. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision taken by the Chief of the Office Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) not to disclose a conflict of interest. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application. Ģ��ƵDT found that the alleged omission forming the basis of the application was not an administrative decision subject to review by Ģ��ƵDT. On appeal, Ģ��ƵAT rendered judgment No. 2011-Ģ��ƵAT-135, in which it found that the contested decision not to disclose a potential conflict of interest could have an impact on the Applicant��s terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by Ģ��ƵDT. The case was remanded to Ģ��ƵDT for trial on the merits. Ģ��ƵDT subsequently issued judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2011/179, in which it found that the Chief of OSLA had not been in any manner involved, while working with Ģ��ƵHCR, in the managerial decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge. Ģ��ƵDT found, accordingly, that there was no conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed before Ģ��ƵDT. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that Ģ��ƵDT has committed an error of fact or law, warranting intervention by Ģ��ƵAT.

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

Larkin

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement