2013-Ģ��ƵAT-329

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Noting the broad discretion of Ģ��ƵDT with respect to case management, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ģ��ƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant��s submission that Ģ��ƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ��evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal��, Ģ��ƵAT noted that these matters had been repeatedly raised before Ģ��ƵDT and that Ģ��ƵDT had informed the Appellant that it was limited to deciding only the issue of his reassignment. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant had raised other matters which were dismissed by Ģ��ƵDT as no administrative review had been sought thereof and Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had properly declined jurisdiction and that the appeal failed on that ground. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly judged the validity of the Secretary-General��s exercise of discretion in administrative matters. Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the finding of Ģ��ƵDT that the reassignment was lawful. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to reassign him. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application finding the Applicant had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the decision to reassign him was made in bad faith and tainted by ulterior motives.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has broad discretion with respect to case management and is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Ģ��ƵAT will not interfere lightly with the discretion of Ģ��ƵDT in the management of cases. The Secretary-General has broad discretionary powers when it comes to the organisation of work. It is not the role of Ģ��ƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.

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

Perez-Soto

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement