2015-Ģ��ƵAT-597

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ģ��ƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ģ��ƵDT and do not merit a reversal except in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting the right to produce evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the manner in which Ģ��ƵDT exercised its discretion and that it was not persuaded that Ģ��ƵDT had committed any error in procedure in declining to call the witness. Ģ��ƵAT held that, having reviewed the oral recording of the hearing, it was satisfied that Ģ��ƵDT did not make improper or prejudicial comments or reach premature conclusions. Noting that the evidence Ģ��ƵDT refused to admit related to events that arose after the contested decision, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in not taking it into account in assessing the correctness of the decision under its review. With respect to the merits of the case, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not persuaded it that the judgment under appeal was affected by any error in law or fact such as to warrant its reversal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s contention that Ģ��ƵDT failed to address his claim that the Administration��s email, which indicated only a limited workload, was undermined by the recruitment of six freelancers the same month was misplaced and Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s reasoning on this issue. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not material to the outcome of the case whether the impugned decision could be said to be tainted by bias or discrimination, as the Appellant had no right to be granted more days of work or any legitimate expectation of being granted more assignments. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his contract. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT will not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ģ��ƵDT in the management of 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

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement

30 Oct 2015