2018-Ģ��ƵAT-853

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment was correct. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency��s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ģ��ƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ģ��ƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ģ��ƵAT also held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT rightly rejected the Appellant��s claims of being discriminated against in the handling of his EVR request. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny his request for SLWOP for a fifth year and the decision to deny his request for EVR. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the maximum duration of SLWOP was one year with a possibility of extension for a second year and that the Applicant had already been granted a total of four years and three months. Ģ��ƵRWA DT also held that the reasons to deny the request for EVR were legitimate and that the denial was a proper exercise of the Agency��s broad discretion. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application on the merits.

Legal Principle(s)

An appellant is obliged to bring their appeal within the parameters of Article 2(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute by identifying specific grounds of appeal. Ģ��ƵRWA Area Staff Rule 109. 2 does not grant an unconditional right to Early Voluntary Retirement (EVR).

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

Madi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement