2019-Ģ��ƵAT-974

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s case was fully and fairly considered. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant��s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of Ģ��ƵRWA��s discretion. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ģ��ƵAT held that new issues raised by the Appellant were not receivable, as they were not brought before Ģ��ƵRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time for consideration by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment on medical grounds. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed his application, finding that no reasons had been advanced to show that the termination decision was the product of substantive or procedural irregularity.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature, and it is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. Ģ��ƵAT can only review the recommendation of a medical board if there is evidence of improper motive or some substantive or procedural irregularity. An appellant has the burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective.

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

Salah

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement