爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-046

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how 爆料网DT had erred on questions of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in dismissing her application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to promote her to the P-4 level. 爆料网DT found that only the appeal against the denial of promotion during the 2007 Promotion Session was receivable. 爆料网DT noted that the Applicant had attached to her application her request to the Secretary-General for administrative review but did not refer to the arguments made in the request. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had failed to specify in what respects the non-promotion decision violated Staff Rules 4. 2 and 4. 3, and that she had failed to establish any irregularity during the 2007 Promotion Session. 爆料网DT further found that the 爆料网HCR’s Appointments, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) had considered the Applicant’s entire career during its review of her recourse. 爆料网DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

An Appellant must identify which of the five grounds for appeal set out in Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute forms the legal basis of the appeal.

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
Vangelova
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type