爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of 爆料网DT regarding the abolition of her post. 爆料网AT recalled the broad discretion of 爆料网DT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of 爆料网DT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the truth. However, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to satisfy 爆料网AT that the 爆料网DT judgment had one or more of the five defects provided for in Article 2.1(a) to (e) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to abolish her post and separate her from service. 爆料网DT rejected the application, finding that the Applicant had failed to present evidence that persuaded it that the abolition of post was manifestly unreasonable, motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove her from the office and that warranted the 爆料网DT’s interference with the Respondent’s discretion.
Legal Principle(s)
An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. 爆料网DT has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto.