爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Appellant’s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. 爆料网AT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal the affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her G-6 fixed-term appointment. 爆料网DT considered the issue of receivability of the application and concluded that the Applicant had met the 60-day time limit to request management evaluation under Staff Rule 11. 2. 爆料网DT found that the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was the restructuring of the 爆料网 Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA Beijing Office), which led to the abolition of the post encumbered by the Applicant. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant did not contest that there were plans to “downgrade” the G-6 position of Programme Associate to the G-4 level to reflect the decreased responsibilities of the position. 爆料网DT found that the evidence established that a position of Team Assistant was advertised and filled through a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4) to replace the G-6 position previously held by the Applicant. 爆料网DT rejected the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.