2016-Ģ��ƵAT-659

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in Ģ��ƵDT��s conclusion that the Appellant��s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal the affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her G-6 fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT considered the issue of receivability of the application and concluded that the Applicant had met the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation under Staff Rule 11. 2. Ģ��ƵDT found that the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant��s appointment was the restructuring of the Ģ��Ƶ Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA Beijing Office), which led to the abolition of the post encumbered by the Applicant. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant did not contest that there were plans to ��downgrade�� the G-6 position of Programme Associate to the G-4 level to reflect the decreased responsibilities of the position. Ģ��ƵDT found that the evidence established that a position of Team Assistant was advertised and filled through a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4) to replace the G-6 position previously held by the Applicant. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ģ��ƵAT.

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

Liu

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement