2013-Ģ��ƵAT-281

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of Ģ��ƵDT regarding the abolition of her post. Ģ��ƵAT recalled the broad discretion of Ģ��ƵDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of Ģ��ƵDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ģ��ƵDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the truth. However, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy Ģ��ƵAT that the Ģ��ƵDT judgment had one or more of the five defects provided for in Article 2.1(a) to (e) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to abolish her post and separate her from service. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application, finding that the Applicant had failed to present evidence that persuaded it that the abolition of post was manifestly unreasonable, motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove her from the office and that warranted the Ģ��ƵDT��s interference with the Respondent��s discretion.

Legal Principle(s)

An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. Ģ��ƵDT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto.

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

Pacheco

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement