爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. 爆料网AT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion on this issue had no errors and that the Appellant, who bore the burden of proof, had failed to discharge it. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the argument that 爆料网HCR’s promotion system lacked transparency could not be the basis of the 爆料网DT’s decision to rescind a decision to deny a promotion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error by 爆料网DT on questions of fact or law. 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 to deny her a promotion to the P-4 level during the promotion session conducted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (爆料网HCR) in 2007. 爆料网DT rendered judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/046, rejecting the application.
Legal Principle(s)
When 爆料网AT hears an appeal, it does not simply re-try the case. The function of 爆料网AT is to determine if the Dispute Tribunal has made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as prescribed in Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute. The Appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the judgment rendered by the Dispute Tribunal is defective. It follows that the Appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective. It is not sufficient for an Appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before the Dispute Tribunal.