爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-213

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant’s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant’s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. 爆料网AT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-爆料网AT-078) and held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims regarding her return to her G-4 post were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that this conclusion rendered moot the Applicant’s petition to produce new evidence, which was not in compliance with the strict statutory limits to allow that kind of application. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions to return her to her former G-4 post, after not being selected for two G-5 posts, and to award her compensation in the amount of six months’ net base salary. 爆料网AT dismissed her application, finding that the decision to return her to her former post was the direct and logical consequence of her non-selection for the G-5 posts and that her compensation was adequate.

Legal Principle(s)

Without regard to the procedural regularity or irregularity of the 爆料网DT’s Orders related to the scope of the parties’ submissions, there are no grounds to consider that the claimant’s right to due process was violated by a judgment by default or for not considering her arguments.

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
Squassoni
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories
Applicable Law