爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-426

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to show that 爆料网DT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. 爆料网AT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to 爆料网DT for his witness to be called. 爆料网AT found that there was no mention of any witness in the 爆料网DT judgment and that it was not clear that 爆料网DT had considered that evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by 爆料网DT for not calling the witness. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case under Article 2. 1(d) of the 爆料网AT Statute, by not allowing the Appellant to call a witness. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT, to hear the evidence of the Appellant’s witness. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and remanded the case to 爆料网DT to be considered by a different judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. 爆料网DT issued judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/025, dismissing the application. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper considerations or was otherwise unlawful. 爆料网DT found that the recommendations of the Final Report were rendered irrelevant as they were never implemented because the Van Field Office was closed due to damage caused by the earthquake. 爆料网DT found that the non-renewal decision was thus solely an Organisational measure that 爆料网HCR was forced to take following the earthquake. 爆料网DT rejected the Applicant’s argument that he was not treated in the same manner as the other staff members, finding that his situation was different from that of the staff members who continued to serve their posts.

Legal Principle(s)

The burden of proving that the grounds for non-renewal were unlawful lies with the staff member contesting the decision not to renew his or her contract.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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