爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-263

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2011/179. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in finding that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest or prejudice to his case. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of any evidence under Article 18. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP and that it had exercised its discretion in deciding not to admit the evidence because it lacked probative value. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found there were no meaningful indicia of a conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA regarding the Appellant’s case. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision taken by the Chief of the Office Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) not to disclose a conflict of interest. 爆料网DT dismissed the application. 爆料网DT found that the alleged omission forming the basis of the application was not an administrative decision subject to review by 爆料网DT. On appeal, 爆料网AT rendered judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-135, in which it found that the contested decision not to disclose a potential conflict of interest could have an impact on the Applicant’s terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by 爆料网DT. The case was remanded to 爆料网DT for trial on the merits. 爆料网DT subsequently issued judgment No. 爆料网DT/2011/179, in which it found that the Chief of OSLA had not been in any manner involved, while working with 爆料网HCR, in the managerial decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge. 爆料网DT found, accordingly, that there was no conflict of interest involving the Chief of OSLA and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed before 爆料网DT. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that 爆料网DT has committed an error of fact or law, warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.

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
Larkin
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type