Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment was firmly supported by the evidence relative to the necessities of service in the context of a downsizing exercise, and no bias or improper purpose vitiated the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Appellant did not effectively rebut the conclusions of the impugned judgment, he did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that it was defective such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate his appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application and noted that Staff Regulation 9.3(a)(i) and Staff Rule 9.6(c)(i) enable the Administration to terminate an appointment if the necessities of service require the abolition of the post or reduction of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was satisfied that the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s appointment was motivated by the necessities of service, which required the reduction of the number of staff members in the United Nations Mission in South Sudan and was not tainted by an improper motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also rejected the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the Chief of Transport had animus towards him.
Legal Principle(s)
The findings of fact made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT can only be disturbed under Article 2(1)(e) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute when there has been an error resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision.