2014-Ģ��ƵAT-471

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Appellant requested that the Ģ��ƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ģ��ƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with the Appellant��s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ģ��ƵAT noted that, while Ģ��ƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP, Ģ��ƵDT��s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT��s refusal to allow the Appellant to call expert evidence was a clear violation of her due process and held that this constituted an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment, and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Judge Weinberg de Roca partially dissented. Judge Weinberg de Roca��s partial dissent: Judge Weinberg de Roca noted that it is well within the competence of Ģ��ƵDT to manage cases as it sees fit and concluded that the Appellant did not demonstrate how the procedure adopted affected or violated her due process rights.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for a post. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her application and concluded that it had not been established that the Administration abused its discretion in the selection process or that the decision not to select her was based on an error of fact or a manifest error of judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Landgraf

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement