2015-Ģ��ƵAT-596

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT noted that, despite its Registry��s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ģ��ƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant��s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ģ��ƵRWA��s regulatory framework. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal had no merit. 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 decisions to extend his probationary period and not to confirm his appointment (for poor performance). Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the applications.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant has the burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective. It follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.

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

Musleh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement