2015-Ģ��ƵAT-583

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was for the General Assembly to decide upon the suggested abolition of her post. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit to the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested inter alia the decisions to abolish her post, to separate her from the Organisation, and not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has broad discretion in managing its cases and it 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. In the absence of an error in the procedure adopted by Ģ��ƵDT which may render the hearing of the case unfair, Ģ��ƵAT will not interfere with the discretion of the Ģ��ƵDT to manage its cases.

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

Lee

Entity

Case Number(s)

2014-678

Tribunal

Ģ��ƵAT

Registry

New York

Date of Judgement

30 Oct 2015