爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-096

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member. 爆料网AT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the 爆料网DT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant 爆料网AT’s intervention. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly represented before 爆料网DT. 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 appoint her to a P-5 post and claimed that she had been improperly excluded from the promotion. 爆料网DT found that the decision not to appoint the Applicant to the P-5 position was valid and lawful. However, 爆料网DT found that there was “inappropriate imprecision and confusion of the matrices” which contributed to the Applicant’s frustration and justified an award of compensation. 爆料网DT awarded the Applicant the sum of USD 1,000.

Legal Principle(s)

An appeal is not an opportunity for the parties to reargue their case. It does not fall to 爆料网AT to conduct a new trial.

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