2018-Ģ��ƵAT-851

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ģ��ƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ģ��ƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency��s decision was arbitrary or prejudiced. Ģ��ƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the DUO/J��s decision to terminate his services. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that, in making this decision, the Agency acted in compliance with Ģ��ƵRWA Area Staff Regulation 9.1 and with the informal and formal OTI process and the deadlines and extensions outlined in Ģ��ƵRWA Area Personnel Directive PD/A/23. Ģ��ƵRWA DT held that the Applicant��s underperformance and lack of improvement justified the decision to terminate his appointment. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant has the burden of establishing that a first instance judgment is defective within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

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

Nemrawi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement