2016-Ģ��ƵAT-687

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the Appellant��s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ģ��ƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant��s challenge to the Commissioner-General��s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly found he did not meet the qualification for entitlement to a disability benefit prescribed by Area Staff Rule 109. 7, in that his appointment was not terminated for reasons of health as required, but rather was terminated due to his poor performance. Ģ��ƵAT further held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT committed no error when it determined that the Appellant��s challenge to the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity was not receivable on the basis that he had not first sought timely decision review within the prescribed time limits. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the following decisions: the decision not to confirm his appointment during the probationary period; the decisions to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit; the decisions regarding the non-payment of a termination indemnity and the calculation of his leave encashment payment; and the decision relating to his period of service. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed all applications, except for the application challenging the calculation of the applicant��s period of service. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found this application receivable and concluded that, as it had already determined that the Applicant continued to be in service of the Agency until 31 December 2014, ordered the Agency to amend the certificate of service accordingly.

Legal Principle(s)

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 the Appeals Tribunal. Management evaluation or decision review is a mandatory first step in the appeals process and is a prerequisite to invoke the Dispute Tribunal��s jurisdiction.

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

Mohanna

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement