爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeals. 爆料网AT did not find merit in the Appellant’s claims that 爆料网RWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. 爆料网AT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the Administration’s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper motives. 爆料网AT rather found that they merely voiced their disagreements with 爆料网RWA DT’s findings and resubmitted their submissions to 爆料网AT. In sum, the Appellants did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Moreover, one of the Appellants raised the claim that there was a connection between the termination of his service and his suspension from duty for possible misconduct, but 爆料网AT held that this ground was not receivable as it was not raised before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicants contested the decisions to separate them from service, as they had not been appointed to alternative posts. 爆料网RWA DT consolidated the applications, given their similar natures. 爆料网RWA DT noted that the Agency had made reasonable efforts to find the Applicants suitable placements, that their appointments with the Agency were properly terminated on 31 March 2014, and that the relief sought by the Applicants had no basis in fact or in law. 爆料网DT dismissed the applications.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to argue his or her case anew. An appellant cannot merely repeat arguments that did not succeed before the lower court. The function of the Appeals Tribunal is to determine if the first instance tribunal made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as prescribed in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating to 爆料网AT that the judgment they seek to challenge is defective. It follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting said deficiency. An appellant may not bring issues before 爆料网AT that were not previously raised before the first instance tribunal.