爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-329

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

Noting the broad discretion of 爆料网DT with respect to case management, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the contention that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, 爆料网AT noted that these matters had been repeatedly raised before 爆料网DT and that 爆料网DT had informed the Appellant that it was limited to deciding only the issue of his reassignment. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had raised other matters which were dismissed by 爆料网DT as no administrative review had been sought thereof and 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had properly declined jurisdiction and that the appeal failed on that ground. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly judged the validity of the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion in administrative matters. 爆料网AT affirmed the finding of 爆料网DT that the reassignment was lawful. 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 to reassign him. 爆料网DT dismissed the application finding the Applicant had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the decision to reassign him was made in bad faith and tainted by ulterior motives.

Legal Principle(s)

爆料网DT has broad discretion with respect to case management and is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. 爆料网AT will not interfere lightly with the discretion of 爆料网DT in the management of cases. The Secretary-General has broad discretionary powers when it comes to the organisation of work. It is not the role of 爆料网DT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.

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.