2014-Ģ��ƵAT-434

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the Ģ��ƵRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of Ģ��ƵRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant, that the Appellant was aware that any extension of his fixed-term appointment as a dental surgeon was contingent upon the post of another doctor being extended. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err when it rejected the Appellant��s contention that he was unaware that the half post he held was the post of another. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had correctly found no basis for the Appellant��s allegation that he had been asked to pay a bribe. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim of unlawful termination of a fixed-term appointment on the ground of improper motive or conduct. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service as a consequence of the suspension of the Mobile Dental Unit project, for Beirut and the North, which resulted in the return of those regular staff who were assigned to the project effective 1 June 2010. Ģ��ƵRWA DT issued Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2013/012, finding the case receivable, and holding that the Applicant had not provided a shred of evidence to support this very serious allegation and recalling that the making of a bold assertion and/or allegation unsupported by any direct or even circumstantial evidence is unacceptable. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing a Judgment of Ģ��ƵDT is unlikely to succeed in having the Judgment reversed, modified or the case remanded to Ģ��ƵDT unless the appeal challenges the impugned Judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2.1 (a) to (e), of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

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

Beqai

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement