爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-014

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one’s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. 爆料网AT also affirmed the findings of fact by 爆料网DT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the process. 爆料网AT further affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant presented no evidence to support any of his charges of corruption or favouritism. Lastly, 爆料网AT failed to see why it would matter whether a hearing is called a “pre-trial” or “pre-hearing” or “case management” meeting. 爆料网AT did not address the question of whether the original application to 爆料网DT was receivable because, in this case, the result was the same either way. 爆料网AT neither affirmed nor reversed 爆料网DT’s finding on that issue but noted that someone who did not even apply for a position has a heavy burden to contest the result of the process.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant alleged that the Administration failed to include the correct number of vacancies in a vacancy announcement. The Applicant also made allegations of corruption, fraud, and favouritism. 爆料网DT found that no rights of the Applicant were breached by the vacancy announcement and that the allegations of fraud, forgery, corruption, and favouritism were not proved. 爆料网DT concluded that the application failed and that the Applicant was not entitled to any relief.

Legal Principle(s)

Minor errors in a promotion process do not necessarily prejudice staff members’ rights.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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
Luvai
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type